• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Wha?!?

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

The DOT has rules regarding what needs to be done to start the process of involuntary boarding. Does it require that they offer up to $1350?

Actually, it only requires they try to find volunteers. The details are left up to the airlines.

In practice the airlines will offer up to the mandated IDB compensation. I don't remember all the rules but it's 4x your fare (or the cheapest fare anyone on the plane paid if you were on an award ticket and thus your fare is $0) up to $1350. (The $1350 is inflation indexed.)
 
I've never heard of airlines offering incentives AFTER the person has boarded. These are usually done at the check in. I did have one connection cancelled by the originator when flying from Beijing via Paris to Caracas.

Actually the French lady was there at the entrance to the aircraft. She wouldn't let one passenger on because he didn't have his ticket along with the boarding. In the end she snatched his boarding pass to replace my cancelled one. (Nowadays the ticket is not required for boarding.

They normally know they're overbooked and can deal with it at check-in/at the gate. You only see after boarding when something changes at the last minute. In this case, the need to deadhead a crew. In another case I'm aware of, a FAM was booked onto the plane after most of the passengers were on board. I'm sure it could also happen if a seat failed in a fashion that breaks the safety regs. (I've had this happen mid-flight. Coming in for landing I find it won't hold in the upright position. That means it would intrude on the space behind, safety violation, that seat can't be used. They didn't have any place to reseat me so I was left there for the landing.)
 
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.

It's your side that insists there's a better solution. The burden is on you to provide it, not fall back on the liberal Bible saying that there's always a good solution if you look hard enough.

I have seen nothing on when the flight departs Louisville. I showed that taking the second United flight didn't make them available until what was probably too late for the first flight of the day. Replacement crew would be for the first flight of the day.


Very early on in this thread I (representing a "side," apparently) provided not just the possibility of a solution, but several solutions with references. It is a fact that there were several other flights departing that evening from Chicago to Louisville.

Your position is based upon nothing but assumptions on your part. At least you've admitted (finally) that you have no idea what flight they were supposed to crew, nor when it departed. Yet you nonetheless assumed it was for the first flight of the following day based upon no evidence whatsoever, then acted as if that were the literal truth.

You assumed it was the first flight because that fit your narrative about rest rules, but even then you don't have a leg to stand on because you admittedly don't even know when that flight was scheduled to leave.

You could easily shut down me, my "side," and this whole argument by providing a few simple pieces of information. The time that the crew's flight was scheduled to depart, the number of hours of rest required, and the arrival times of the other flights available to them. If the rules say they need 10 hours of rest, they don't get into Louisville until10pm, and their flight leaves at 7am, you win. We all shut up, and concede that you and United were perfectly justified (though the cops were overly violent).

I find it fascinating that in all the coverage of this incident, that information hasn't come out yet. Fascinating because that information could shut down not just this little spat on some small internet forum, but shut down most of the criticism of United and shift the discussion to the actions of the security personnel. If rest rules were in play, then United could easily release the information about the flight the crew was going to staff in Louisville, explain why they would have been required to have a specific number of hours of rest prior to that flight, and thus why they absolutely could not take any other later flight lest they risk not being sufficiently rested for the next day.

United's CEO could patiently explain this, point out that they were attempting to comply with the rules, and that any other course of action would have put the lives of the crew and their passengers at risk the next day. Commuter airline flights have crashed because of exhausted pilots. People have died because crews were overworked. Simple explanation, right?

So, for shits and giggles I did what you were unable or unwilling to do. Looked it up. Here's the scheduled arrivals at SDF (that's Louisville):

https://www.flightview.com/airport/SDF-Louisville-KY/arrivals

The flight in question is scheduled to arrive at about 8pm.

The first United Flight in the morning heads back to Chicago at 7:30am. Next one leaves for Houston at 8:05.

http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do

What are the rest rules?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/

The new regulations, which don't apply to cargo pilots, require that pilots get at least 10 hours of rest between shifts. Eight of those hours must involve uninterrupted sleep. In the past, pilots could spend those eight hours getting to and from the hotel, showering and eating.

Now here's where your "side" of the story falls apart, Loren. Thanks to the delay (dragging the man off the plane, deboarding the other passengers, cleaning up the blood, etc.), Flight 3411 was delayed, and landed in Louisville around 10pm. Ten hours later is 8am, a half hour after the departure of the first United flight out of Louisville.
 
They did resort to violence,
correct

But you are saying they didn't go high enough, $800 wasn't enough and they had a duty to go higher. They don't have a duty to go higher, there is no law that says they do. So for the 40,000 involuntary bumps last year did they offer $1350 or more in every case?
Doesn't matter what happened in any other case (unless they resorted to violence in any of those cases too). United COULD have offered a higher incentive to get ANY passenger (not necessarily Dr. Dao) to voluntarily give up their seat. United absolutely had a duty to find a better solution than what they did do in this case, more money simply being the most expedient possibility
 
correct

But you are saying they didn't go high enough, $800 wasn't enough and they had a duty to go higher. They don't have a duty to go higher, there is no law that says they do. So for the 40,000 involuntary bumps last year did they offer $1350 or more in every case?
Doesn't matter what happened in any other case (unless they resorted to violence in any of those cases too). United COULD have offered a higher incentive to get ANY passenger (not necessarily Dr. Dao) to voluntarily give up their seat. United absolutely had a duty to find a better solution than what they did do in this case, more money simply being the most expedient possibility

And they could have had the stewardesses approach every male in the cabin and whisper we'll help you join the mile high club if you voluntarily give up your seat. They aren't required by law to offer any amount of money, they aren't required to offer up enough money so there is no involuntary bumps. The normal procedure followed by all airlines is ask for volunteers and then choose names if they can't find volunteers.
 
I looked up flight times Ford for Republic flights out of Louisville. They leave at 6:05 and 7:30 in the morning. If the four were flight attendants, then they had a chance at making the 6 flight, if it was pilots they could only make the 7:30 flight. But either way the time frame for making it was very small. Can you cite the FAA regulations that require a flight crew re positioned for flights must take the last flight possible even if it's delayed by 10 minutes they won't make it?
 
You said it right there Loren. Its the rules stupid. The rules that nobody in the media or nobody on this board after 30 pages has talked about. I believe it is the rules that were ultimately the cause and effect of this whole opera and drama.

Lets be honest now, the rules are just plain stupid. And no doubt the airlines lobby got the rules became the rules. We have let the corporations rule us and become so powerful that they now make stupid rules that actually do themselves harm (as in this case) as well.

Who the hell except for a greedy CEO needs to set a limit compensation offered!? This is America. Let the market decide! Everyone with any ounce of sense knows that that was what should have happened. Its past time to get rid of citizens united and let the corporations be corporations again instead of our Gods.

Our Supreme Court needs to realize that you can not allow an entity to have limited liability AND treat them like a citizen and not expect anything except chaos.

Chaos is exactly what United got. And I blame the rules that the airlines set for themselves.

If the rules didn't exist they would be free to simply say "get off", no compensation. Watch what happens with rental cars. "We're sorry, the car you reserved hasn't been returned yet. We don't have a car for you." Compensation, $0, at least it was only a planned trip, not landing in a city and being told no cars.
The point you have missed is that the rules need to exist but they need to be fair rules. Fair rules like let the market decide fair compensation for being bumped. We don't have fair anything anymore with laws like citizens united that allow corporate rule of our society.
 
If he was assaulted that would be a tort. If he was simply ejected, that would just be a breech of contract. Either way, seems he can sue for damages.

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

I would guess under the law he was a trespasser on their plane.

eta:

Here is the fine print. See section 25 for rules for involuntarily terminated reservations.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Rule 25 seems to be about denying boarding. When a person has already boarded, the contract appears to be silent.

Here's an analysis from a law professor:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Of course, UA's lawyers will argue otherwise if the matter is not previously settled. We'll have to wait and see, but based on the available info, I'd say the passenger will probably get a good amount of money.
 
A poster at the bottom of this page says that the dead-heading crew were scheduled to depart 20 hours after the incident. That claim is repeated later in their thread. I can't find a source for the claim, though.

It's fascinating to read through that thread. At first a large number of people are claiming that the passenger committed a felony, got what he deserved, etc. As people posted links to the United contract of carriage, US law, and analyses by law professors it died down dramatically, to the point that there are just a few die-hards on page 39 repeating the same debunked claims ad nauseam while providing no supporting documentation whatsoever. I'm glad this forum would never get that point.
 
You mean like how certain you were about Zimmerman being found guilty?
You are babbling again. UA knows it is losing business. Why else would it refund the fares to everyone on that flight? Why else would it say it is reviewing its practice. Do you really think UA wants this fiasco to continue to be in the news?
You can be right and lose the PR battle. The old Mantra is don't hurt children or old people, we're more sensitive to it. United wins very little if they go all the way. Even getting the Dr to apologize on national TV for his wrong behavior wouldn't help enough.
UA screwed up and they know it. We can surmise this from their actions. And all of this could have been avoided if they had a sufficiently flexible policy that would allow their people to offer sufficient compensation.
 
And all of this could have been avoided if they had a sufficiently flexible policy that would allow their people to offer sufficient compensation.

Or if the port cops (excuse me,  transit police) hadn't violated their own policy and a couple laws as well. Lots of blame to go around.

ETA: The best law enforcement insult I ever heard was a federal marshal telling me and a couple other federal marshals "That's why he's a port cop and will never be anything but a port cop." She had a very good point in that case.
 
You are babbling again. UA knows it is losing business. Why else would it refund the fares to everyone on that flight? Why else would it say it is reviewing its practice. Do you really think UA wants this fiasco to continue to be in the news?
You can be right and lose the PR battle. The old Mantra is don't hurt children or old people, we're more sensitive to it. United wins very little if they go all the way. Even getting the Dr to apologize on national TV for his wrong behavior wouldn't help enough.
UA screwed up and they know it. We can surmise this from their actions. And all of this could have been avoided if they had a sufficiently flexible policy that would allow their people to offer sufficient compensation.

Or that UA knows that the strategy is they suck it up and apologize instead of fight it. They don't win anything by fighting it.
 
A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville, but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

It is not so clear-cut that he didn't have the right to stay. But no matter how the precise legal case falls, United screwed up their own scheduling and then tried to force a paying customer to be badly inconvenienced by it against his will. Entirely inexcusable.

Another link on the passenger's rights.

Sorry, I hadn't seen this post when I posted the same link as your second link. My bad.
 
It is not so clear-cut that he didn't have the right to stay. But no matter how the precise legal case falls, United screwed up their own scheduling and then tried to force a paying customer to be badly inconvenienced by it against his will. Entirely inexcusable.

Another link on the passenger's rights.

Sorry, I hadn't seen this post when I posted the same link as your second link. My bad.

Not a problem. A couple participants on this thread could use a reminder that they have neglected to read the linked articles.
 
Whatever the law, the law can be an a Ass, it is simply bad business practice to treat customers badly (word gets around). Not to mention physically assaulting customers.
 
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.

Nobody has shown that the cop's actions were illegal.

Airline doesn't want you there, tells you to leave. If you stay anyway you're trespassing--and it's perfectly legal for the cops to use force to evict a trespasser. The only question here is whether the airline is civilly liable for anything beyond an ordinary involuntary denied boarding.

- - - Updated - - -

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

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

You think the low level people are authorized to offer more? And this was after normal business hours, the sort of people that could authorize it were probably no longer at work to be able to do so.

You think that it's OK to authorise a person who you don't trust with a few grand of the company's money, to initiate the use of force?

If offering $2k is above his pay-grade, then why the FUCK isn't the decision to have a passenger forcefully removed from the aircraft also above his pay-grade?

Is the wellbeing of passengers less important than a few thousand dollars to UA?*

It is this elevation of small sums of money over humane treatment of people that is the reason for the outcry here; this is not an isolated incident, but rather is a particularly public instance of a widespread problem across corporate America.

People are more important than a few thousand dollars, and if you cannot trust your staff to make decisions about such sums of cash, then you sure as shit should not be entrusting them with the welfare of your customers.











*For the benefit of the Hard of thinking, this is a rhetorical question; they have clearly demonstrated that it is.
 
If you can run the airline better, and maintain a profit, then you can . . .

start your own company with investors who agree with you and prove that your business plan is better, instead of pretending you know better than those who are taking the risks.


Is the wellbeing of passengers less important than a few thousand dollars to UA?

It's more than a few thousand, and that higher cost will be passed on to future passengers. When the cost to the company goes up, the well-being of passengers goes down.

United has announced a change, i.e., to never again eject a passenger by force, which means future costs will be higher, because the one-out-of-ten-billion passenger who does this will not be removable, and so some other passengers who would have yielded their seat now will not do so, and costs will be much higher than they would have been otherwise. Probably it means there will be more empty seats on future flights, because they won't be able to book as many.

If that passenger had left the plane, like the other 3 -- the law-abiding passengers -- did, then the future costs would not have to go up, and the well-being of all consumers would have been served. But now, because of his bad behavior, costs to all future passengers will be higher, and their well-being lower.


It is this elevation of small sums of money over humane treatment of people that is the reason for the outcry here;

No, the cost-savings, the money, is also important to future passengers, and a guarantee that no one can be forcefully removed regardless of the rules will lead to future costs which will be a net harm to all the consumers, and thus will be inhumane treatment. It's inhumane to reduce people's standard of living by forcing them to pay unnecessarily higher prices.


this is not an isolated incident, but rather is a particularly public instance of a widespread problem across corporate America.

How many times each day does corporate America drag a passenger kicking-and-screaming from a plane? each month? year? How is this a "widespread problem"? Corporate America is doing a good job of avoiding such incidents as this. With all the cameras now everywhere recording everything, it's almost a miracle that we have so few cases of this.


People are more important than a few thousand dollars, . . .

Which is why that guy should have got off the plane willingly. He has now reduced the standard of living to millions of Americans, costing them millions of dollars, not just a few thousand.

. . . and if you cannot trust your staff to make decisions about such sums of cash, then you sure as shit should not be entrusting them with the welfare of your customers.

The good decisions now cannot be made, because the problem can no longer be addressed with a moderate solution, whoever makes the decisions, because a thoughtless knee-jerk solution is the only kind possible now.

In addition to this passenger, the many apologists for him are to blame for the higher cost which will now be paid, and thus the lower standard of living society will suffer because they put one crybaby ahead of the public good.
 
start your own company with investors who agree with you and prove that your business plan is better, instead of pretending you know better than those who are taking the risks.




It's more than a few thousand, and that higher cost will be passed on to future passengers. When the cost to the company goes up, the well-being of passengers goes down.

United has announced a change, i.e., to never again eject a passenger by force, which means future costs will be higher, because the one-out-of-ten-billion passenger who does this will not be removable, and so some other passengers who would have yielded their seat now will not do so, and costs will be much higher than they would have been otherwise. Probably it means there will be more empty seats on future flights, because they won't be able to book as many.

If that passenger had left the plane, like the other 3 -- the law-abiding passengers -- did, then the future costs would not have to go up, and the well-being of all consumers would have been served. But now, because of his bad behavior, costs to all future passengers will be higher, and their well-being lower.


It is this elevation of small sums of money over humane treatment of people that is the reason for the outcry here;

No, the cost-savings, the money, is also important to future passengers, and a guarantee that no one can be forcefully removed regardless of the rules will lead to future costs which will be a net harm to all the consumers, and thus will be inhumane treatment. It's inhumane to reduce people's standard of living by forcing them to pay unnecessarily higher prices.


this is not an isolated incident, but rather is a particularly public instance of a widespread problem across corporate America.

How many times each day does corporate America drag a passenger kicking-and-screaming from a plane? each month? year? How is this a "widespread problem"? Corporate America is doing a good job of avoiding such incidents as this. With all the cameras now everywhere recording everything, it's almost a miracle that we have so few cases of this.


People are more important than a few thousand dollars, . . .

Which is why that guy should have got off the plane willingly. He has now reduced the standard of living to millions of Americans, costing them millions of dollars, not just a few thousand.

. . . and if you cannot trust your staff to make decisions about such sums of cash, then you sure as shit should not be entrusting them with the welfare of your customers.

The good decisions now cannot be made, because the problem can no longer be addressed with a moderate solution, whoever makes the decisions, because a thoughtless knee-jerk solution is the only kind possible now.

In addition to this passenger, the many apologists for him are to blame for the higher cost which will now be paid, and thus the lower standard of living society will suffer because they put one crybaby ahead of the public good.

You really are a vile misanthrope.

I sincerely hope that you are not now, or ever, placed in any position of authority whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
It's more than a few thousand, and that higher cost will be passed on to future passengers...

You've nailed the corporate pathology on it's head.

No accountability for bad management.

No accountability for bad decisions.

Pass it all on to customers.

And if they don't like it, beat them up.
 
I really don't see how the standard of living for Americans goes down just because the airline has to decide who gets a seat on the plane before they start boarding.
 
Back
Top Bottom