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

[DBT]

If the idea of treating paying customers with inconsiderately or with casual contempt becomes acceptable business practice then the standard of living of customers, being treated with respect and consideration, goes down.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Except... Dao IS a member of that public, isn't he? So the concept of the public good would include his good, right?

Any one of us could have been on that flight, with something scheduled that we considered important, and not been interested in voluntarily giving up our seat.

How do we measure how much we value our personal schedule against the company's reasons for asking for volunteers?
Their system of prioritizing passengers to bump doesn't care if you have to be at work Monday, or have prepaid vacation plans, or your mother's funeral, or your child's birthday, or the new season of Big Bang Theory is starting...

Wouldn't these be part of our expected 'standard of living'? The right to make my own choices about whether or not the incentive being offered is worth missing Mom's funeral?


So, go ahead and assign blame, if you want. Costs will increase, but not because people think Dao was fucked over. United has made a series of mistakes that ensure that every single flier on EVERY airline is going to be thinking 'What is my minimum threshold or missing a flight?'
Because they know that every airline, especially united, will now be willing to pay through the fucking nose to avoid making another headline. The fact that United was NOT IN THE RIGHT, here, is why every airline is going to be over a barrel for the foreseeable future.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

The irony here is that measures are in there so employees benefit. Many people mentioned that they should have made their employees drive to Louisville, an inherently more dangerous, stressful, and tiring method than just flying.

 

[Learner]

In an article 2016 somewhere I read that the CEO of United, instead, used private planes rather than the company's airline when travelling about. If it was so important that staff of United were needed to be at some destination they could of at least bummed a lift from the CEO so to speak.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

But why is sitting on the plane any meaningful difference. It's like this guys doctors office and having to wait in the main office or in a waiting room. Having to make the decision on when to bump someone earlier is a inconvenience to passengers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In an article 2016 somewhere I read that the CEO of United, instead, used private planes rather than the company's airline when travelling about. If it was so important that staff of United were needed to be at some destination they could of at least bummed a lift from the CEO so to speak.

So now United needs to have a private jet sitting around at every airport for a incredible rare event of one passenger not wanting to be an adult and give up his seat.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The irony here is that measures are in there so employees benefit. Many people mentioned that they should have made their employees drive to Louisville, an inherently more dangerous, stressful, and tiring method than just flying.

It is a policy that says FU to customers so that managers can be more convenienced, not crews.

Crews could be shuttled around in these instances in the same private jets high ranking executives use.

This is a bunch of arrogant masters creating a system to screw over their customers by pretending to care about crews.

- - - Updated - - -

In an article 2016 somewhere I read that the CEO of United, instead, used private planes rather than the company's airline when travelling about. If it was so important that staff of United were needed to be at some destination they could of at least bummed a lift from the CEO so to speak.

So now United needs to have a private jet sitting around at every airport for a incredible rare event of one passenger not wanting to be an adult and give up his seat.

No. They need to get a private jet to an airport.

On these rare occasions.

Not have one waiting.

Jets can fly.

 

[Artemus]

But why is sitting on the plane any meaningful difference.

Because both the United Contract of Carriage and US Law define them as being different. (And before you play ignorant again, the analyses by attorneys and law professors were posted yet again on the previous page.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

But why is sitting on the plane any meaningful difference.

Because both the United Contract of Carriage and US Law define them as being different. (And before you play ignorant again, the analyses by attorneys and law professors were posted yet again on the previous page.)

It's one that is being debated, but won't be settled. There is a technicality and actual inconvenience, In this case it's only the former

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why stop there unter. Everybody deserves to be shuttled around in private jets at the low cost of a normal plane.

- - - Updated - - -

But why is sitting on the plane any meaningful difference.

Because both the United Contract of Carriage and US Law define them as being different. (And before you play ignorant again, the analyses by attorneys and law professors were posted yet again on the previous page.)

It was an opinion of one lawyer, there was been both sides on this. The CoC allows for a passenger to be removed from an aircraft to comply with FAA regulations. Not causing delays and making sure that flight crews have enough rest for a next flight are FAA regulations.

 

[Learner]

In an article 2016 somewhere I read that the CEO of United, instead, used private planes rather than the company's airline when travelling about. If it was so important that staff of United were needed to be at some destination they could of at least bummed a lift from the CEO so to speak.

So now United needs to have a private jet sitting around at every airport for a incredible rare event of one passenger not wanting to be an adult and give up his seat.

Not suggesting United have private planes themselves - they would simply just hire one in the vicinity but only if such situations are that desperately important. Besides they could have used someone to simply fill in for the staff member(s) taking the flight at the destination end until then .. I'm pretty sure they have quite a few employees all over the place.

 

[zorq]

Why stop there unter. Everybody deserves to be shuttled around in private jets at the low cost of a normal plane.

Do you ever get tired of your juvenile strawmen?

 

[Artemus]

Because both the United Contract of Carriage and US Law define them as being different. (And before you play ignorant again, the analyses by attorneys and law professors were posted yet again on the previous page.)

It's one that is being debated, but won't be settled.

Debated by whom? Explain the legal flaws in the opinions given in those articles.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The irony here is that measures are in there so employees benefit.

There is no irony here because this crew needed to get to Louisville in order to work (i.e. generate a profit for UA). This has been pointed out numerous times, yet you persist in your false claim.

 

[Artemus]

Why stop there unter. Everybody deserves to be shuttled around in private jets at the low cost of a normal plane.

- - - Updated - - -

Because both the United Contract of Carriage and US Law define them as being different. (And before you play ignorant again, the analyses by attorneys and law professors were posted yet again on the previous page.)

It was an opinion of one lawyer, there was been both sides on this. The CoC allows for a passenger to be removed from an aircraft to comply with FAA regulations. Not causing delays and making sure that flight crews have enough rest for a next flight are FAA regulations.

It is the opinion of numerous attorneys and at least two law professors. Show an example of a counter opinion by an attorney that cites relevant sections of the CoC or US code.

 

[laughing dog]

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?
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.

Duh. And they don't win anything by fighting it because they screwed up and almost everyone knows it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why stop there unter. Everybody deserves to be shuttled around in private jets at the low cost of a normal plane.

Do you ever get tired of your juvenile strawmen?

Unter was the one saying that United fly all o f it's employees around in private jets to get to their next step. You see no problem in that?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The doctrine of corporate infallibility. Wow.

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.

Wrong. When the cost to passengers (which includes the cost of being involuntarily deplaned) goes up, their well-being does down.

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.

Your claim has been decomposed with every strand debunked by numerous posters. I find it hard to believe that anyone really could believe the hysterical nonsense you conflate with a logical reality-grounded argument.

 

[zorq]

Do you ever get tired of your juvenile strawmen?

Unter was the one saying that United fly all o f it's employees around in private jets to get to their next step. You see no problem in that?

Wrong.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Unter was the one saying that United fly all o f it's employees around in private jets to get to their next step. You see no problem in that?

Wrong.

He said that crews should be ferried around like the exec and use a private jet. All airlines use a combination of their own airlines plus their competitors to move their crews around. This happens every day. Planes don't sit idle waiting for a drop of the hat a flight somewhere and a flight can't just spin up that quickly. They need to find the pilots, file fight plans, fuel, etc. If the airlines didn't alllow their employees flexibility it would be very rough on finding employees because they couldn't live anywhere they want.