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

[Loren Pechtel]

The flight crew doesn't get it's rest, they don't fly the plane. Doesn't matter if that means 300 people get stranded for a week in the wrong country.

Listen Mr. Thinks-he-is-an-expert-on-everything-in-the-world... I've indulged enough of your blather on this topic, particularly as you have not provided a shred of evidence as to what/who the four airline personnel were, why they needed to be transported, or anything else about them

I, on the other hand, grew up in the airline industry. My father was a life-long pilot. My mother was a flight attendant. My (ex)husband is a pilot. I was hired by Delta to be a flight attendant and went through the training. I actually know a thing or two about the mandated rest periods, and a thing or two about how airlines move personnel. One of the things I can tell you is that if it was so fucking critical a crew get to some particular place, they would not be cutting it so close with regard to rest periods. And if this particular crew was cutting it so fucking close that the airlines had to literally assault a passenger to make room, they should have simply arranged for a different standby crew from somewhere else.

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.

 

[Ford]

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Exactly. People are obsessing about how to prevent this case when it's not the biggest cause of not getting there. My personal score:

Weather--wrong country. (They flew us back. 4 hours of air time, 90 minute runway hold, I do not recall how long we spent in the terminal.)

Weather--very close call, made it. Severely busted the minimum time, if they hadn't had seats we would have been left behind without IDB compensation. (They had given away our seats but there were empties in business class they gave us.)

Mechanical--8 hours waiting for another plane.

Never been bumped, offered to take a bump a couple of times but they didn't need me. Never seen an IDB.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If a flight is cancelled they simply bump passengers to an available flight. In some cases that can be a week.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No. $1350 is the maximum they can be made to pay by law. It's not the maximum compensation they can offer.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

They had no reason to know there was going to be a problem until this guy chose to fight the cops.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's not just US airlines. Airlines everywhere overbook. Hotels everywhere overbook. (And your compensation is a lot less in that case!)

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.

Thus making the system slower and more costly, all to avoid hauling someone off a plane. A really stupid approach.

I've been that passenger left off the manifest because I wasn't there (weather delay)--but I managed to get there just before they closed the doors. I've been the passenger who didn't even have a ticket when they started boarding. (Family emergency, a short hop with lots of flights. I threw what I needed in a bag and headed for the airport, never even having looked at the schedule. I walked up to the counter of the airline I figured had the best prospects, good fare, boarding now, better run. Obviously, this was before the era of the TSA.)

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?

I've been on a plane that turned back because the weight and balance numbers came out wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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.

 

[repoman]

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)

 

[Toni]

The airline may have been compelled by circumstances to ask passengers to give up their (paid) seats in order to accommodate crew members needed in another location. This happens in some small percentage of flights at all airlines. United has a history of this with much greater frequency than other airlines. Why? It seems to me that it must be some kind of error in management on the part of United. Which is not the fault of any passenger.

United could have offered a larger incentive and surely would have attracted another volunteer.

United could have taken into consideration whether this particular passenger had an urgent need to be on that particular flight. In this case, it seems that perhaps he did. There were other passengers who could have been asked to give up their seat. With appropriate compensation, of course.

United was not compelled to call airport cops to assault and drag off an unwilling 'volunteer' in order to accommodate the airline's staffing needs.

No one was compelled to slam the face of a peaceful 69 year old passenger into the arm rest of a seat on the plane and drag him off the plane. No one.

Anyone who could not figure out a better way to handle this situation deserves to lose his or her job. Those who assaulted a passenger for no reason other than he refused to give up what he paid for should be fired.

 

[repoman]

So if the passenger had sucked it up and walked off the flight, but still had video of the exchange, what would the upshot have been?

How many times has this happened (deboarding) on United flights?

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.

 

[RVonse]

https://youtu.be/7su_nBRl3fs

 

[repoman]

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.

This happened two days before Eric Garner died while given a chokehold. I wonder if the financial standing of the resisting dickhead in this case made the cop pause on how intense he was going to be. A lot of chutzpah from this guy in the car:

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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 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.

If so, then this applies also to the 3 others who complied and deboarded willingly. It was inhumane to them also, to be forced to leave, i.e., with the threat of violence to them if they refused.

And yet this happens occasionally, as passengers take the compensation and leave, even though it's not really voluntary. I.e., they choose to comply, but only because it's a requirement, and they would be physically forced if they did not comply.

Isn't this just as "inhumane" as physically forcing the one who does not comply? Isn't it just as inhumane to threaten someone and they comply, as to carry out the threat to the one who refuses? And this non-violent compliance does happen in many cases, where someone is removed, and they comply.

But if this is not allowed, and the company may never require someone to give up their seat, no matter what, then the costs would go way up, and the price for air travel would increase substantially.

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

"unfairly"?

The result of this would be higher-cost air travel. Do you want to force millions of air passengers to pay higher prices? = lower standard of living? Why would that be a good result?

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 . . .

"acceptable"?

. . . 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 changed; and the person who puts themself in harms way to oppose such unjust rules or laws is to be applauded for their bravery.

and consumers penalized with higher prices.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Bow to whatever's best for consumers.

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.

No, only when they do what's good for all consumers. When the corporations make consumers generally worse off, then we should NOT bow to them.

All this is done for the sake of lower cost = lower prices = higher standard of living for all.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens. Should those 3 have also made a fuss? What good did this character accomplish by going ballistic? What did he know that the other 3 did not?

Whatever went wrong in the procedures (assuming the company made a mistake somewhere), it will be corrected, and it would have been corrected anyway without this guy causing such a commotion. Some reasonable change in procedure would have been the result, if all 4 passengers had complied, instead of only 3.

But after the commotion and circus atmosphere of this, the company now might overreact and make extreme changes which will end up being unnecessarily costly.

The bad behavior by this guy and the sideshow will end up costing passengers higher prices in the future.

The airline messed up and overbooked. As others and myself said, UA could have offered incentives for people to reschedule their flights as other airlines do. I've quoted one example earlier (Philippine Airlines). If a plane is overbooked then refusal takes place at the check-in counter, not after UA accepted him as a passenger.

UA wouldn't have to put its fares up but simply increase its efficiency. If it put its fares up it couldn't compete with other airlines. Certainly on treatment of passengers it doesn't seem to be competitive.

Well then the market is already penalizing United for this, and it will improve its service if it can. If you believe United enjoys bumping passengers for sadistic reasons and cares nothing about profit, you might have a paranoia problem.

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.

But as it has turned out, the extra costs resulting from this highly-publicized case will mean higher ticket prices in the future for ALL airline passengers.

Still, it makes for good entertainment on TV, which might be factored in as a social benefit.

 

[bilby]

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.

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.

 

[bilby]

So if the passenger had sucked it up and walked off the flight, but still had video of the exchange, what would the upshot have been?

How many times has this happened (deboarding) on United flights?

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 make the world a less awful place for everyone.

FTFY.

 

[Lion IRC]

https://youtu.be/7su_nBRl3fs

Loved it. Post moar of these


[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/7su_nBRl3fs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[RavenSky]

Fighting the cops is bad behavior, period.

Great job! Spoken like a true authoritarian! You put the Putin fan boys to shame.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

The problem is that your side is complacent 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[RavenSky]

Listen Mr. Thinks-he-is-an-expert-on-everything-in-the-world... I've indulged enough of your blather on this topic, particularly as you have not provided a shred of evidence as to what/who the four airline personnel were, why they needed to be transported, or anything else about them

I, on the other hand, grew up in the airline industry. My father was a life-long pilot. My mother was a flight attendant. My (ex)husband is a pilot. I was hired by Delta to be a flight attendant and went through the training. I actually know a thing or two about the mandated rest periods, and a thing or two about how airlines move personnel. One of the things I can tell you is that if it was so fucking critical a crew get to some particular place, they would not be cutting it so close with regard to rest periods. And if this particular crew was cutting it so fucking close that the airlines had to literally assault a passenger to make room, they should have simply arranged for a different standby crew from somewhere else.

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.