they absolutely DO have this option!
mc
I’ve had people on a few occasions want to stay in the dining room after it was closing time.
Most of the time, it was because they came in right before closing time, and they want to eat their meal before they leave. This seems reasonable to me, and to me, is as reasonable as keeping the seat that you have paid for. They will leave when they are done with their food, and the passenger will leave when the plane is at its destination.
I have had people waiting for a ride, and not wanting to go outside to wait in cold or otherwise nasty weather. This is more of an imposition on me, but still, whatever, they will leave when their ride comes.This would be analogous to not leaving the plane until they have gathered all their stuff and gotten their party together to all leave at once.
I have to admit, I have never had anyone sitting in my dining room for no reason, and refusing to ever leave. This is not a thing that people do. If it did come down to it, I would eventually call the police, and ask them to use appropriate force to remove the person from my restaurant, but if we are doing a plane analogy this is a person who, after landing, refuses to leave the airplane. This is not even close to the situation that we are discussing. This is something that people do not do. I would think that something was wrong with the person mentally in some way.
From what I hear they first offered 400 bucks, then 800 and a hotel room, then when nobody took the bait decided to go with “punching our customers in the face” rather than upping the compensation again. Maybe they figured a lawsuit and horrible publicity would be cheaper at that point…
Whether or not they have this specific option isn’t so important because they have other options.
If tomorrow Congress passed a law saying that passengers already seated on a plane cannot be involuntarily removed so the seat can be given to someone else, what do you think would happen? The airline industry would just throw up its hands and quit trying to staff flights? Fares would skyrocket? Neither is very likely, especially given how rare this specific circumstance is.
Jimmy Kimmel commercial for United — United Airlines...Fuck You - YouTube
You heard wrong, as has been repeated over and over and fucking over again.
If this is such a freakin’ rare occurrence, then why this hurry for massive regulation changes?
Do we write laws only to prohibit very common incidents? No we don’t. We very often prohibit things that aren’t necessarily common.
As for “massive regulation changes,” I’m not sure where on the scale this falls between massive and negligible, but it seems to me to be a rather narrow issue to deal with. Airlines are subject to a lot of regulations. This one more thing isn’t going to confuse them too much.
And of course theoretically statutory or regulatory changes might not even be necessary, if it so happens that the court of public opinion is sufficient to shame airlines into halting this practice. It’s all good.
So long as airlines no longer forcibly remove seated passengers in order to give their seats to someone else, I don’t really care how we get there.
If this passenger had been removed by competent law enforcement officials without doing harm to the passenger, would there be a problem?
If it is still a problem, then why wasn’t it a problem when it happened before…beside the fact that this time was a screaming mess of a situation?
If the problem is the mess caused by that particular cop, then maybe there an overreaction and the wrong problem is being solved here.
-
Yes, there would still be a problem. Legitimately seated passengers should not be subject to involuntary removal for the purpose of giving that seat to someone else. So, no, in my view the cops’ actions are not the sole problem needing remedy.
-
If it happened before, then it was a problem before, one I hope that we are just getting around to fixing. Better late than ever.
This.
Oh, and Fuck United.
Yes, the person in question was involuntarily removed from his seat, in a way in which, appears was not in the common carrier contract.
So, we have a problem where there is a person that is required to pay a penalty for the airline’s problem. This should be addressed.
It has been a problem before, but only to the passengers who were being inconvenienced by the airline. This puts it into public, where we can all see and empathize with the situation.
I fly very very rarely, but I would like to see this issue addressed, as I do not want to be put into this situation when and if I do fly.
It’s not the particular cop, it’s that they called the cops. There is absolutely nothing that a cop can do that a flight attendant can’t do, except apply force. In fact, there is less that a cop can do. They can’t make offers of cash or vouchers like the flight crew can.
As Malcom Reynolds said “which is what happens when you call the feds.”
Not everyone has to be Rosa Parks. Which in a way is too bad because your impression of Bull Connor with respect to civil liberties and the use of force is spot-on (so is your suggestion that Ms. Parks was somehow more admirable because she was quiet as her rights were being violated and the law was being upheld, but that’s not today’s problem).
This thread is an argument between people who say United had no right to remove their passenger, which is not true, and those who say United had every right to do so, which is not true, and those who say it shouldn’t have happened regardless of the applicable rules, which is an opinion and depends on your point of view. My thought, to which I attached a cite which apparently didn’t work, was that United has some rights to remove passengers but did not obey the law in this case. In any event, they’ve evidently promised to quit the practice.
Someday soon, though, someone empowered with newfound corporate religious freedom is going to try this with a passenger they’ve belatedly discovered is gay, or transgender, or traveling for the purpose of getting an abortion, and it would be nice if we had better law in place before that happens.
Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but this is just RO, so chill the fuck out maybe ?
RO?
mc
Fuck United. They are still at it.
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for ‘higher-priority’ traveler
United shows no concern for their passengers or for honoring their tickets. My travel dollars will go to someone else.
Recreational outrage - i.e. getting worked up about something that did not affect you personally.
aah!
i dont think there’s anything recreational in Czar’s outrage. at this point in the conversation, which has gone on for dozens of pages in several threads, if youre still getting the basic facts wrong youre either:
a) not reading any of the posts before you chime in
b) dont understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, or
c) intentionally posting something for the express purpose of getting a rise out of someone - i forget what thats called.
if this is all just fun and games for you, just go sit at the kids table and let the adults talk!
mc
What amazes me is that both United (through it’s CEO) and the Chicago PD agree that this was an awful situation that should not have happened and are committed to taking steps to ensure that it will never happen again, yet people continue to defend their actions and accuse the victim of doing something wrong. It’s really fascinating that people will defend actions that even the company and agency involved say are indefensible.
as someone pointed out in one of the other threads, it doesnt have to be an either or decision. i think its perfectly reasonable to point out that there’s plenty of blame to go around. everybody involved in this fiasco looks bad; including the passenger.
mc