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

[coloradoatheist]

Why? if this behavior normally works 99 times out of 100 or more you wouldn't change. Most of the time they find people that are reasonable and give up their seats, like the other 3 people on the plane who did.

And they could have done so here, too, by increasing the offer. From everything I've read, they offered between $800 and $1,000; yet one of the articles linked to in this thread calculated the apparently permissible upper limit amount (either from federal regulations or United's own policies) as $1,350. Why didn't they at least try up to $1,350 before assaulting their paying customers?

The $1350 is the maximum allowed by law. The law is that you get twice your one far up to $1350. For that short of a flight and a one way fare, the $800 offered is more than most people would have gotten if they were involuntarily denied boarding.

- - - Updated - - -

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

What would United have done if weather had canceled this flight?

Found another flight or found another standby flight crew.

And if that had been the case, the doctor would have been on a next day flight. It sucks for flying but you have to prepare for the possibility that you might not arrive at the time you had hoped. So the doctor reschedules his own patients the next day.

 

[RavenSky]

The $1350 is the maximum allowed by law. The law is that you get twice your one far up to $1350. For that short of a flight and a one way fare, the $800 offered is more than most people would have gotten if they were involuntarily denied boarding.

So what.

Supply and demand.

Not enough supply. United needed four seats. They managed to get three at the low low price of $800 each, but they needed that 4th. They should have - AT MINIMUM - gone as high as the $1350 before deciding they had no other option but to assault a paying passenger. Which is not to say they would ever have the right to assault this man, only that they did not - by any remote stretch of the imagination - exhaust every option before turning to violence.

 

[Underseer]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

If UA had given in to him, then what about the other 3 passengers who did comply? They too would have stayed on the plane, and the result would have been that the 4 crew members could not get to their destination, and so hundreds of passengers waiting elsewhere would have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. Probably a few doctors in that number who needed to get back to their job.

OR -- if UA gave in to only this one passenger who made a fuss, then the moral of the story is: No matter what, you can always get around the rules if you make a fuss -- just make a bigger fuss than the other guy.

Aren't there already procedures in place to prevent what happened (99.99% of the time)? But this one case, out of a few million, is the fluke which was inevitably going to happen.

Any alternative would mean HIGHER TICKET PRICES = lower standard of living for all.

The benefit of allowing for this odd case to happen, once every 5 or 10 years in a fluke situation out of millions, is lower ticket prices.

The public, or the passengers generally, are the ones who benefit from the rules being as they are and allowing this to happen somewhere once every few years.

I.e., the benefit is lower ticket prices.


WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

How dare he fail to obey the demands of a corporation?

Doesn't he know that the cortisone are the new aristocracy and that he is merely a lowly commoner, and not even a white one?

The nerve of that doctor!

 

[RavenSky]

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

What would United have done if weather had canceled this flight?

Found another flight or found another standby flight crew.

And if that had been the case, the doctor would have been on a next day flight. It sucks for flying but you have to prepare for the possibility that you might not arrive at the time you had hoped. So the doctor reschedules his own patients the next day.

No. It sucks for United - they should have found a different stand-by crew in a better position to get to the needed airport. Now they are going to be paying this doctor a LOT of money - far far far more than any other non-violent option would have cost them - AND have to regain the trust of the general public.

 

[Underseer]

By the way, everyone knows how I refer to conservatives and libertarians as neofeudalists? That's hyperbole.

Lumpy here is an actual neofeudalist, although I thought he was just talking about the decedents of nobles. I had no idea he also expects us to bow to corporations.

 

[beero1000]

And they could have done so here, too, by increasing the offer. From everything I've read, they offered between $800 and $1,000; yet one of the articles linked to in this thread calculated the apparently permissible upper limit amount (either from federal regulations or United's own policies) as $1,350. Why didn't they at least try up to $1,350 before assaulting their paying customers?

The $1350 is the maximum allowed by law. The law is that you get twice your one far up to $1350. For that short of a flight and a one way fare, the $800 offered is more than most people would have gotten if they were involuntarily denied boarding.

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. The law gives a max on the amount required by law, not a max on the amount allowed by law.

I really, really don't get the strenuous defense of airlines' abilities to screw over passengers. Presumably, you don't own an airline, but I'm assuming you have flown in an airplane and will again in the future. Why argue for weaker passenger rights?

 

[laughing dog]

You have no idea how this doctor would have reacted if he had been bumped before he boarded the plane. None whatsoever.
Most likely get on another flight. But it should be obvious to even the most obtuse that there is a world of difference between a flight that is cancelled due to unsafe weather conditions and being ordered off an airplane.

But whether it's weather, no flight crew available, mechanical troubles, or other staffing issues traveling by plane has an inherent risk of not getting somewhere in time. We trade the convenience with losing guarantees. If you had to be somewhere then you either drive or make sure even with delays or weather you get there way earlier. There's no fundamental difference difference from being bumped at the gate or when you are seated except the inconvenience of being late if they have to wait later at the gate.

Using your logic, UA should have told the crew to stay home since they should have made sure even with delay or weather or lack of seats. Moreover, the doctor did not trade away any guarantees - once he was BOARDED, he was entitled to the seat.

United could have tried to entice someone to give up his or her seat. They didn't. Demanding that someone picked at random to leave the plane is arrogant and anti-customer. Customers are not expected to change their routines to suit the business. Really, your position is ridiculous.

 

[Lion IRC]

Excellent thread.
Can't wait for driverless cars and the same smart technology which issues one too many boarding passes can 'decide' which vehicle gets priority.

no one issued "one too many boarding passes"

Yeah they did.
They shouldnt have let him get on and take his allocated seat if someone else was going to be sitting there instead.

 

[RavenSky]

no one issued "one too many boarding passes"

Yeah they did.
They shouldnt have let him get on and take his allocated seat if someone else was going to be sitting there instead.

Please go back and start this thread from the beginning; especially all of the links to credible expert sources. I think you were too busy enjoying your popcorn, and missed the finer factual points.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Honestly, the biggest failure of United wasn't to mile-high club the entire plane to keep them happy and from publishing the videos.

In the case of the passenger, he probably can state that he felt he had an extremely legal obligation to being on the plane seeing he paid to be on it. He may not have been aware that United may have possibly had the right to kick him off.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Law? No, not law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Excellent thread.
Can't wait for driverless cars and the same smart technology which issues one too many boarding passes can 'decide' which vehicle gets priority.

Sorts first by wealth and then race of driver.

 

[bilby]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

I guess we'll just see what happens with this lawsuit. I'm betting on a settlement, but for the purposes of this thread, that's just as good as a favorable deliberation.

I think that United will settle. It's easy for us to say that United to defend their lawsuit and counter sue on principle but it won't do any good for them.

You better believe they will aggressively try to settle. This is hugely bad for them. Expect to see this go to jury and expect a punitive damages award severe enough for all airlines to restructure their procedures for survival.

You think you can find a jury that doesn't have a single person on it that has been unfairly treated in an airport anywhere, ever?

The punitive damages will be the net sales (not profit) of UA and UA holdings on all routes, globally, for one day. In 2016 that was 2.3 BILLION dollars for the year. So one day would be over 6 million.

This guy is getting over 10 million in combined awards.... without a doubt in my mind.

Before I did the math I estimated closer to 100 million in punitive, to ensure the industry is HIGHLY motivated to change. Now that I did the math, I see that would be a bit over the top.. .but still possible.

If United wins the lawsuit they don't win much in this case. The can't counter sue this guy for the billions that the company lost for this. So they will settle for an undisclosed amount. But this is very much rewarding bad behavior.

'Bad behaviour' is the purview of children who are too young to be reasoned with.

It's not an appropriate description of the refusal, by an adult, to comply with an arbitrary and unfair decision made by an authoritarian functionary who wishes to abuse his power by forcing someone to surrender something they have already paid for.

Standing up for the rights of the disempowered against an authority that prefers to use force in the name of saving the few dollars needed to recruit a volunteer is not 'bad behaviour'; it's downright heroic.

This wasn't some grave injustice unfair rule. 5 minutes earlier he would have been upset by his flight being canceled or him bumped.

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

This isn't about what the passenger wanted or hoped for.

This is about abuse of authority to harm innocent people.

Rosa Parks could have gotten to her destination on time and with little fuss if she had just obeyed the rules and sat at the back of the bus. But her protest - like this passenger's - wasn't about transportation. It was about humanity; and about refusing to bow to tyranny.

It saddens, but doesn't surprise, me that so many people are totally missing the point.

 

[bilby]

You have no idea how this doctor would have reacted if he had been bumped before he boarded the plane. None whatsoever.
Most likely get on another flight. But it should be obvious to even the most obtuse that there is a world of difference between a flight that is cancelled due to unsafe weather conditions and being ordered off an airplane.

But whether it's weather, no flight crew available, mechanical troubles, or other staffing issues traveling by plane has an inherent risk of not getting somewhere in time. We trade the convenience with losing guarantees. If you had to be somewhere then you either drive or make sure even with delays or weather you get there way earlier. There's no fundamental difference difference from being bumped at the gate or when you are seated except the inconvenience of being late if they have to wait later at the gate.

Again, THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.

The reason that this is getting worldwide attention is that it is about HUMANITY. United Airlines' actions were inhumane and assumed a degree of authority over their customers that is absolutely unacceptable.

You don't get to treat someone unfairly, and then respond to his refusal to comply with your unfair demands with violence.

That applies in every setting. That this instance of a stupid failure to apply that simple moral principle by a corporation happens to involve UA, or air travel, or even transportation of any kind is wholly irrelevant.

If the man had paid for a movie ticket, and then been dragged from the theatre by police because the cinema owner arbitrarily chose him for removal, the exact same questions and concerns would arise.

Corporations should not be allowed to use force to avoid paying an acceptable level of compensation to customers who are denied service due to something outside the customer's control. If their rules say that they are allowed to do so; or the law says that they are allowed to do so, then the rules (or the laws) need to be charged; and the person who puts themself in harms way to oppose such unjust rules or laws is to be applauded for their bravery.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah they did.
They shouldnt have let him get on and take his allocated seat if someone else was going to be sitting there instead.

Please go back and start this thread from the beginning; especially all of the links to credible expert sources. I think you were too busy enjoying your popcorn, and missed the finer factual points.

The finer factual point is that the dude should not have been allowed to board if they needed his seat for someone else.
And airlines failing to manage who is going to be in which seat with less than 15 minutes to go before takeoff makes me really nervous.

 

[Lion IRC]

I get that (US) airlines are greedy.
I get that they deliberately overbook.
I get that occasionally airline crew bump paying customers - for lots of reasons.

What I don't get is that there is no 'point of no return' at which the airline says...OK now we can start boarding because it's too late for any last minute changes to the passenger manifest.

What next? Planes aborting take-off at the last minute because they have to taxi back to the terminal and kick some passenger off to make way for airline crew?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

'Bad behaviour' is the purview of children who are too young to be reasoned with.

It's not an appropriate description of the refusal, by an adult, to comply with an arbitrary and unfair decision made by an authoritarian functionary who wishes to abuse his power by forcing someone to surrender something they have already paid for.

Standing up for the rights of the disempowered against an authority that prefers to use force in the name of saving the few dollars needed to recruit a volunteer is not 'bad behaviour'; it's downright heroic.

Fighting the cops is bad behavior, period.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until you are able to grasp that there can be a difference between the statements "It is required by the established rules, regulations and laws" and "It is the right thing to do", you will never be able to qualify as a fully adult human being.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[repoman]

Adam Carolla has some interesting insights into this. Not that I agree with all of it, but different perspectives are useful:

 

[bilby]

'Bad behaviour' is the purview of children who are too young to be reasoned with.

It's not an appropriate description of the refusal, by an adult, to comply with an arbitrary and unfair decision made by an authoritarian functionary who wishes to abuse his power by forcing someone to surrender something they have already paid for.

Standing up for the rights of the disempowered against an authority that prefers to use force in the name of saving the few dollars needed to recruit a volunteer is not 'bad behaviour'; it's downright heroic.

Fighting the cops is bad behavior, period.

Never have you posted something that packs quite so much wrong into so few words.

 

[repoman]

Fighting the cops is bad behavior, period.

Never have you posted something that packs quite so much wrong into so few words.

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.