Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[RavenSky]

You want him left on the plane--without a thought for the hundreds of people who are going to be left behind because the crew didn't get there.

I'm going to ask the question again, since you seem either unwilling or unable to answer:


What time was that flight out of Louisville? If it was so vital for them to get to Kentucky and staff that flight, the least you could do is identify the flight number in question and what time it was scheduled to depart.

This could be an open and shut case if you can provide this vital information. If they needed to be in their racks at a Louisville hotel resting up for their next flight and there was no other way to get them there in time, then (apart from the beating the doctor took from the cops) you've got the critics dead to rights.

So what time did that flight out of Louisville leave, Loren?

And I would like to add a question of my own for Loren to answer - what made this specific stand-by crew so special. Was it the only one in the entire universe able to crew that Louisville flight? Provide factual evidence with links to the source material for your answer.

 

[RavenSky]

And look at the time. If they change to a different crew they have to round up that crew from somewhere and get them on a bird to St. Louis--something that would take time and very well might bump someone else. Chicago is United's hub in the area, that's where extra crew normally would be.

It's amazing how many stupid options I see proposed on here.

The only stupid option was using violence against an innocent paying customer - but look at the option you are vigorously defending. No surprise there!

 

[RavenSky]

So, does this give a perverse incentive for people not to follow the advice of comply then contest/sue later? Resist and get a bigger payout.

It has now, I suspect. And it will also cost all airlines one hell of a lot more than $800 per passenger the next time this situation comes up. That is 100% thanks to United's choice to use violence against a paying passenger to save a few hundred dollars.

Delta Airlines is allowing airline employees to offer up to nearly $10,000 to encourage passengers to give up their seats on overbooked flights, according to The Associated Press on Friday...

The AP said it obtained an internal Delta memo authorizing the airline’s gate agents to offer as much as $2,000 in compensation for overbooked flights, up from a previous high of $800. Delta supervisors can now offer up to $9,950, up from a $1,350 maximum.

http://thehill.com/policy/transport...up-to-10k-in-overbooked-flight-payouts-report

 

[laughing dog]

bottom line: Had this passenger complied, like the other 3 did, everyone would be better off, and UA (and other companies) would investigate this case (of passengers having to deboard) and would find ways to avoid this situation in the future.

A customer is under no obligation to comply with the diktats of a firm. The 3 passengers who left the plan did so voluntarily because they felt it was in their best interests. There is no reason to believe that UA would have investigated anything if 4 people had left the plane, because that was following current policy. Nor would there have been any reason for any other airline to review their policy, since this would not have made the news.

The bottom line is that if costs do end up going up, it is due to UA's failure. If UA had been efficient, it would have already permitted its employees to offer greater incentives to induce reluctant customers to leave a plane.

 

[untermensche]

And look at the time. If they change to a different crew they have to round up that crew from somewhere and get them on a bird to St. Louis--something that would take time and very well might bump someone else. Chicago is United's hub in the area, that's where extra crew normally would be.

It's amazing how many stupid options I see proposed on here.

The only stupid option was using violence against an innocent paying customer - but look at the option you are vigorously defending. No surprise there!

The poor corporation.

It had to get something done for the millions it makes.

The executives flying around in private jets had to get something done for the millions they make.

Did they offer cash? Not a difficult solution to think up.

You offer enough cash and a ticket on a later flight and a lot of people will take it.

No this huge corporation making millions did not offer cash.

They assaulted somebody instead.

Which is going to cost them a lot more.

 

[whichphilosophy]

bottom line: Had this passenger complied, like the other 3 did, everyone would be better off, and UA (and other companies) would investigate this case (of passengers having to deboard) and would find ways to avoid this situation in the future.

A customer is under no obligation to comply with the diktats of a firm. The 3 passengers who left the plan did so voluntarily because they felt it was in their best interests. There is no reason to believe that UA would have investigated anything if 4 people had left the plane, because that was following current policy. Nor would there have been any reason for any other airline to review their policy, since this would not have made the news.

The bottom line is that if costs do end up going up, it is due to UA's failure. If UA had been efficient, it would have already permitted its employees to offer greater incentives to induce reluctant customers to leave a plane.

That's the second time I'm agreeing you in 2 days. Now that must not be allowed to happen. I believe they were given a payment per my earlier post. However, you are correct more incentives. Even in Chinese contract law there is the doctrine of the disadvantaged party when negotiating a contract though it is very difficult to achieve in every case. That is to say the negotiating position must be between 2 equal parties. If the incentive is high enough, then surely another passenger can be found.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The only stupid option was using violence against an innocent paying customer - but look at the option you are vigorously defending. No surprise there!

The poor corporation.

It had to get something done for the millions it makes.

The executives flying around in private jets had to get something done for the millions they make.

Did they offer cash? Not a difficult solution to think up.

You offer enough cash and a ticket on a later flight and a lot of people will take it.

No this huge corporation making millions did not offer cash.

They assaulted somebody instead.

Which is going to cost them a lot more.

I quoted earlier that the airline did offer cash. However upping a bit plus a free ticket meant someone could have been found.

Why let a consumer get in the way of profits. I mean safety regulations and living wages are eating into the airline profits and now passengers expect they can be thrown off even after they have checked in. What next? Throwing someone overboard during the flight? Wot?

- - - Updated - - -

It has now, I suspect. And it will also cost all airlines one hell of a lot more than $800 per passenger the next time this situation comes up. That is 100% thanks to United's choice to use violence against a paying passenger to save a few hundred dollars.

Delta Airlines is allowing airline employees to offer up to nearly $10,000 to encourage passengers to give up their seats on overbooked flights, according to The Associated Press on Friday...

The AP said it obtained an internal Delta memo authorizing the airline’s gate agents to offer as much as $2,000 in compensation for overbooked flights, up from a previous high of $800. Delta supervisors can now offer up to $9,950, up from a $1,350 maximum.

http://thehill.com/policy/transport...up-to-10k-in-overbooked-flight-payouts-report

I hope this ends up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

 

[beero1000]

From Reddit, authenticity unconfirmed, emphasis mine:

I was on this flight and want to add a few things to give some extra context.

This was extremely hard to watch and children were crying during and after the event.When the manager came on the plane to start telling people to get off someone said they would take another flight (the next day at 2:55 in the afternoon) for $1600 and she laughed in their face.

The security part is accurate, but what you did not see is that after this initial incident they lost the man in the terminal. He ran back on to the plane covered in blood shaking and saying that he had to get home over and over. I wonder if he did not have a concussion at this point. They then kicked everybody off the plane to get him off a second time and clean the blood out of the plane. This took over an hour.

All in all the incident took about two and a half hours. The united employees who were on the plane to bump the gentleman were two hostesses and two pilots of some sort.

This was very poorly handled by United and I will definitely never be flying with them again.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm going to ask the question again, since you seem either unwilling or unable to answer:


What time was that flight out of Louisville? If it was so vital for them to get to Kentucky and staff that flight, the least you could do is identify the flight number in question and what time it was scheduled to depart.

This could be an open and shut case if you can provide this vital information. If they needed to be in their racks at a Louisville hotel resting up for their next flight and there was no other way to get them there in time, then (apart from the beating the doctor took from the cops) you've got the critics dead to rights.

So what time did that flight out of Louisville leave, Loren?

And I would like to add a question of my own for Loren to answer - what made this specific stand-by crew so special. Was it the only one in the entire universe able to crew that Louisville flight? Provide factual evidence with links to the source material for your answer.

I used to work in aviation. Flight crews are run on a very tight schedule with strict rest guidelines. I don't doubt at all that there was only one flight crew reasonably close that could take flight and be on schedule. However it's still there fault for scheduling it so tight.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I would like to add a question of my own for Loren to answer - what made this specific stand-by crew so special. Was it the only one in the entire universe able to crew that Louisville flight? Provide factual evidence with links to the source material for your answer.

I used to work in aviation. Flight crews are run on a very tight schedule with strict rest guidelines. I don't doubt at all that there was only one flight crew reasonably close that could take flight and be on schedule. However it's still there fault for scheduling it so tight.

Not sure if we'll find out for sure, but the rumor has been a weather delayed flight that the crew was coming in .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lawyer up and sue the fuck out of them later, but there are very few cases where you should not comply with officers in the moment.

Granted a police officer who abuses his authority to demand compliance should be reprimanded until he improves or is fired. This should happen more often than it does.

Exactly. The law specifically says you should challenge wrongful acts by the cops in the courts, not on the scene. Comply and sue, don't fight. The only reason to consider fighting is if compliance will physically harm you or someone you are taking care of.

Or if you have a very good reason to suspect the officer is an impersonator or will murder you (like in a hollywood movie such as L.A. Confidential)

And murder isn't a subset of physically harm??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. The law specifically says you should challenge wrongful acts by the cops in the courts, not on the scene. Comply and sue, don't fight. The only reason to consider fighting is if compliance will physically harm you or someone you are taking care of.

It is both the right and the duty of anyone who cares about freedom to stand up and oppose unjust laws and bullying law enforcers.

That most of the world is made up of lily livered cowards who comply with authority without a murmur renders this all the more imperative. Tyranny unopposed is detrimental to us all.

Deference to authority is the idiots' alternative to reason. It's fine for children and dogs; they know no better. But smart people obey the rules only because doing so usually coincides with the reasonable and fair course of action. And when it no longer does, smart people break the rules; and brave smart people take a stand. You can judge how just a society is by how often the law coincides with what is right; and how free it is by how often obedience is compelled by force before all other options have been exhausted.

People who fight against injustice are called heroes. They are rare; but they protect us all against the human tendency towards mindless authoritarianism.

Some authoritarians are so mindless that they mistake acts of heroism for mere annoyance at the disruption of the hero's travel plans.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between fighting in court and fighting the cop. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. We wanted him left on the plane and for the airline to find a rational, peaceful, appropriate solution for their internal logistical problem. One that does NOT involve violence against paying passengers.

The usual liberal non-answer to tough problems--waive a magic wand and everything will come out ok.

In the real world there were two choices: Boot the doctor or cancel multiple flights.

The ideal answer--raising the compensation--was almost certainly not possible in the time they had available.

Now, the best answer is to increase the compensation offered but that assumes there's somebody on scene empowered to offer more--and that's unlikely. The norm is they don't offer more than the IDB rules mandate.

Then they should have located someone with the authority to increase the compensation before they resorted to violence against a paying customer.

They didn't resort to violence. They asked the cops to remove him. He resorted to violence with the cops.

A typical leftist answer--unable to make hard choices so you "choose" the path of inaction that results in greater harm.

The "greater harm" here is advocating to allow a corporation to direct authoritarian violence against innocent citizens in the pursuit of maximized profits. The greater tragedy is that you don't recognize this fact, and instead - yet again - advocate for authoritarian violence against innocent people.

In other words, the political answer rather than the reality answer. Anything to avoid addressing the fact that you are choosing the path of greatest harm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you know about the airline industry then you know things sometimes go wrong. The last minute nature of this case makes it quite obvious they were reacting to something that happened elsewhere in the network.

While you would never plan a situation that cut it very tight on crew rest when things go wrong you fix them the best you can even if that means cutting it close to the minimums.

Note that the next flight was 3 hours later. UA3411 got in at 8pm. The later flight would thus have gotten in at 11pm. Add 10 hours of crew rest and we are up to 9am assuming no checked baggage. The crew has to be ready before boarding, I can't see them being able to crew a flight taking off before 10am. That's awfully late in the day for the first flight of the day, taking the later flight most likely wasn't an option.

Note, also, that it was also full, all you would have accomplished is moving the bump from the aircraft to the gate.

Note that the entire section I bolded is just Loren speculating at shit he knows nothing about yet again; and does not address (1) any actual facts, (2) the possibility of moving the particular crew on a different carrier, (3) the possibility of moving a different crew into place from somewhere else, (4) the possibility of increasing the incentive until another passenger voluntarily agreed, or (5) ANY other solution that does not involve assaulting a paying passenger.

Both United flights were full (he couldn't be reaccomodated on the later United flight). Why do you think the other flight had 4 open spaces?

As for crew from elsewhere--I showed it was unlikely. Chicago is where United would have spare crew waiting around.

As for increasing the incentive--you think a policy decision like that is going to be made fast enough? Come back when you're not on LSD!

As for 5--it's not my job to pull a solution out of my ass. We have had a lot of people suggesting solutions, if there was a viable one someone would have suggested it by now. Just because hte liberal Bible says there's always a good answer to a problem doesn't make it so. It liberals' biggest weakness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I would like to add a question of my own for Loren to answer - what made this specific stand-by crew so special. Was it the only one in the entire universe able to crew that Louisville flight? Provide factual evidence with links to the source material for your answer.

I used to work in aviation. Flight crews are run on a very tight schedule with strict rest guidelines. I don't doubt at all that there was only one flight crew reasonably close that could take flight and be on schedule. However it's still there fault for scheduling it so tight.

Oh, come on now--you really think they scheduled this? It's obviously an attempt to fix something that went wrong. If it was scheduled it would have happened before boarding!

 

[RavenSky]

In the real world there were two choices: Boot the doctor or cancel multiple flights.

This is so obviously bullshit that I have to believe you are fucking with us now.

The ideal answer--raising the compensation--was almost certainly not possible in the time they had available.

wrong

They didn't resort to violence. They asked the cops to remove him. He resorted to violence with the cops.

wrong

Anything to avoid addressing the fact that you are choosing the path of greatest harm.

wrong

 

[RavenSky]

Both United flights were full (he couldn't be reaccomodated on the later United flight). Why do you think the other flight had 4 open spaces?

There are other airlines besides United

As for crew from elsewhere--I showed it was unlikely.

You showed no such thing. You never back up your bullshit claims.

As for increasing the incentive--you think a policy decision like that is going to be made fast enough?

They already had the authority to go to $1350 and didn't

Come back when you're not on LSD!

fuck you

 

[Ford]

As for 5--it's not my job to pull a solution out of my ass.

In this thread it is your job to defend your position, which is (in part) that the flight in question was the only one that would get the crew to their destination in time to make the flight which they were supposed to crew.

In order for you to properly defend that position, it is upon you to provide the information as to which flight that was and what time it was scheduled to depart Louisville. You haven't done this.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How many passengers per day are dragged off planes kicking and screaming?

The problem is that your side is outraged about what happened and refuses to see the bigger picture.

The problem is that your side is complacent about what happened and refuses to see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is keeping costs down = lower prices = higher standard of living for all. Why shouldn't a higher standard of living be important?

You want him left on the plane--without a thought for the hundreds of people who are going to be left behind because the crew didn't get there.

Wrong. We wanted him left on the plane . . .

But not only him -- what about the other 3 who did comply and got off? They did so under coercion, not by free choice, so you must want them also left on the plane -- right? Isn't it just as wrong to threaten force as it is to use it when the threatened one refuses to comply?

. . . and for the airline to find a rational, peaceful, appropriate solution for their internal logistical problem.

But not knowing what that is, because we're not omniscient, we have to leave that to those who directly perform the service, based on the best they can decide within the limited time frame.

One that does NOT involve violence against paying passengers.

What is the percentage of airline passengers who have violence done to them? Maybe one in a couple billion? It's a pretty small fraction. So the companies are doing a pretty good job of not doing violence to passengers. Maybe a grade of A-.

Now, the best answer is to increase the compensation offered but that assumes there's somebody on scene empowered to offer more--and that's unlikely. The norm is they don't offer more than the IDB rules mandate.

Then they should have located someone with the authority to increase the compensation before they resorted to violence against a paying customer.

Of course this also means increasing the compensation to the 3 who complied and got off. They chose to exit the plane under the terms of the lower compensation. You can't change the terms when someone refuses to comply after others already complied. The whole compensation question is being worked out -- but they had a decision to make at that time. They couldn't hold that plane there for 3 or 4 weeks (months) to allow time for the compensation policies & procedures to be settled.

A typical leftist answer--unable to make hard choices so you "choose" the path of inaction that results in greater harm.

The "greater harm" here is advocating to allow a corporation to direct authoritarian violence against innocent citizens in the pursuit of maximized profits . . .

The citizen in question is not totally "innocent" if he disobeys a lawful order from a security officer or law enforcement official.

The greater tragedy is that you don't recognize this fact, and instead - yet again - advocate for authoritarian violence against innocent people.

Ultimately there has to be a threat of force when people refuse to obey a lawful order. The infrequency of actually resorting to violence indicates a good success rate at achieving the goal of minimum violence.

 

[bilby]

It is both the right and the duty of anyone who cares about freedom to stand up and oppose unjust laws and bullying law enforcers.

That most of the world is made up of lily livered cowards who comply with authority without a murmur renders this all the more imperative. Tyranny unopposed is detrimental to us all.

Deference to authority is the idiots' alternative to reason. It's fine for children and dogs; they know no better. But smart people obey the rules only because doing so usually coincides with the reasonable and fair course of action. And when it no longer does, smart people break the rules; and brave smart people take a stand. You can judge how just a society is by how often the law coincides with what is right; and how free it is by how often obedience is compelled by force before all other options have been exhausted.

People who fight against injustice are called heroes. They are rare; but they protect us all against the human tendency towards mindless authoritarianism.

Some authoritarians are so mindless that they mistake acts of heroism for mere annoyance at the disruption of the hero's travel plans.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between fighting in court and fighting the cop. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that your opinion of what is or is not acceptable is the last word on the matter.

It's no less acceptable to fight back against a cop who illegally assaults you than it is to fight back against anyone else.

Cops should be held to a higher standard than civilians; your belief that the reverse is true marks you down as both an authoritarian and an idiot.