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

[untermensche]

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

Just crew members and instead of throwing people off their flights.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

Just crew members and instead of throwing people off their flights.

Yeah we couldn't ask people to act as responsible adults and realize that at times to provide more convenience to all passengers that people have to be hurt because one person doesn't get his way.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

It is not "normal procedure" to yank a passenger out of their seat and drag them off an airplane that he was already allowed to properly board.

They had already failed to follow any sort of "normal procedure", so the burden was on them to find a solution that did not involve violence against an innocent paying passenger.

I am, frankly, shocked that you would side with the corporation on this. I know that Loren and some of the others are authoritarians and always take the "might makes right" position, but I thought you held yourself out to be a Libertarian, and that the "free market" should be allowed to prevail.

A genuinely free market does not include using the violence of hired guns in place of "free market solutions".

 

[laughing dog]

Just crew members and instead of throwing people off their flights.

Yeah we couldn't ask people to act as responsible adults and realize that at times to provide more convenience to all passengers that people have to be hurt because one person doesn't get his way.

Yeah we couldn't ask people to act as responsible adults and realize that at times to provide more convenience to all passengers that people have to be hurt because one person an airline doesn't get his its way through violence.

 

[RavenSky]

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,

Very interesting. I'd be interested to see the source for the flight info, as well. Frankly, it conforms much better to what I know of how airlines schedule their crews, too. Unless there was a massive weather event or emergency somewhere, they simply don't move crews around with so little lead time.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

No, unter did not say that. The exact relevant quote is

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

On these rare occasions.

(bold-faced, italics, red and large print are mine).

You see no problem in that?

I see in problem in your increased reliance on ridiculous straw men.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

^^^ excellent point.

Moreover, they could have hired a private charter jet to take the 4 crew into position for about what they were willing to pay the four passengers (the $800 - $1,000 each plus hotel/other accommodations)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Raven,
can that booked boarded and departed within an hour of knowing you need it on a Sunday night?

- - - Updated - - -

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?

No, unter did not say that. The exact relevant quote is

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

On these rare occasions.

(bold-faced, italics, red and large print are mine).

You see no problem in that?

I see in problem in your increased reliance on ridiculous straw men.

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day. 40,000 people in 2016 were involuntarily bumped, that's over 100 a day. How is something that happens 100 times a day rare? What's rare it's a person saying no.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

It is not "normal procedure" to yank a passenger out of their seat and drag them off an airplane that he was already allowed to properly board.

They had already failed to follow any sort of "normal procedure", so the burden was on them to find a solution that did not involve violence against an innocent paying passenger.

I am, frankly, shocked that you would side with the corporation on this. I know that Loren and some of the others are authoritarians and always take the "might makes right" position, but I thought you held yourself out to be a Libertarian, and that the "free market" should be allowed to prevail.

A genuinely free market does not include using the violence of hired guns in place of "free market solutions".

It's not normal for someone that has been told they need to get on a different flight to say no. There are involuntarily boarding denials all the time, 100 per day. Flying is a risky endeavor, we trade the riskiness of one thing for it' benefit, but it's something known that you may not always get to your destination with your stuff on that exact time that you want. You need to prepare for contingencies. As a medical profession who should understand the issues with scheduling and customer service the doctor should be prepared and understand it. I guess I'm the only one who has any empathy on the board for customer service.

 

[laughing dog]

Raven,
can that booked boarded and departed within an hour of knowing you need it on a Sunday night?

- - - Updated - - -

No, unter did not say that. The exact relevant quote is

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

On these rare occasions.

(bold-faced, italics, red and large print are mine).

You see no problem in that?

I see in problem in your increased reliance on ridiculous straw men.

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day.

Wrong. Being taken off a plane is not the same as being denied boarding.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day. 40,000 people in 2016 were involuntarily bumped, that's over 100 a day. How is something that happens 100 times a day rare? What's rare it's a person saying no.

Is there a breakdown of this number?
When you say 'involuntarily bumped,' is that limited to people kicked off of a not-oversold flight for the convenience of the airline?

Or does it include people bumped when weather or mechanical difficulties impact scheduled flight service, and people from canceled flights are given priority on later flights?

Because without a breakdown, I can see where THIS could still be a rare situation, if the 'involuntarily bumped' includes several different kinds of situations.

 

[RavenSky]

Raven,
can that booked boarded and departed within an hour of knowing you need it on a Sunday night?

According to that website - yes.

And that is not even taking into consideration that none of you - not you, not Loren, no one - has factually shown that this crew absolutely positively had to be wheels up and on their way within an hour - especially since, in fact, they were not on their way within an hour because the flight they were trying to get on was more than 2 hours delayed.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not "normal procedure" to yank a passenger out of their seat and drag them off an airplane that he was already allowed to properly board.

They had already failed to follow any sort of "normal procedure", so the burden was on them to find a solution that did not involve violence against an innocent paying passenger.

I am, frankly, shocked that you would side with the corporation on this. I know that Loren and some of the others are authoritarians and always take the "might makes right" position, but I thought you held yourself out to be a Libertarian, and that the "free market" should be allowed to prevail.

A genuinely free market does not include using the violence of hired guns in place of "free market solutions".

It's not normal for someone that has been told they need to get on a different flight to say no.

So what. That does not excuse using violence against an innocent paying passenger who was already boarded.

There are involuntarily boarding denials all the time, 100 per day.

This was not an "involuntarily boarding denial"

 

[coloradoatheist]

Raven,
can that booked boarded and departed within an hour of knowing you need it on a Sunday night?

- - - Updated - - -

No, unter did not say that. The exact relevant quote is

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

On these rare occasions.

(bold-faced, italics, red and large print are mine).

You see no problem in that?

I see in problem in your increased reliance on ridiculous straw men.

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day.

Wrong. Being taken off a plane is not the same as being denied boarding.

Only on a literal definition, not end result. If he had be denied at the door he still misses his flight.

- - - Updated - - -

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day. 40,000 people in 2016 were involuntarily bumped, that's over 100 a day. How is something that happens 100 times a day rare? What's rare it's a person saying no.

Is there a breakdown of this number?
When you say 'involuntarily bumped,' is that limited to people kicked off of a not-oversold flight for the convenience of the airline?

Or does it include people bumped when weather or mechanical difficulties impact scheduled flight service, and people from canceled flights are given priority on later flights?

Because without a breakdown, I can see where THIS could still be a rare situation, if the 'involuntarily bumped' includes several different kinds of situations.

They don't break the numbers down for each, but people don't get where they are going when they want all the time. This makes it sound like Dr was the first person never to make it to the final destination at the right time. There are instances where people have just said yes when they are bumped when sitting on the plane.

 

[untermensche]

Raven,
can that booked boarded and departed within an hour of knowing you need it on a Sunday night?

- - - Updated - - -

No, unter did not say that. The exact relevant quote is

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

On these rare occasions.

(bold-faced, italics, red and large print are mine).

You see no problem in that?

I see in problem in your increased reliance on ridiculous straw men.

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day. 40,000 people in 2016 were involuntarily bumped, that's over 100 a day. How is something that happens 100 times a day rare? What's rare it's a person saying no.

Yes, what is rare is an individual standing up to corporate abuse.

It is amazing how rare that is.

That's a shame for all of us.

 

[laughing dog]

Only on a literal definition, not end result.

Wrong.

If he had be denied at the door he still misses his flight.

For some reason, you seem unable to comprehend that taking something away (in this case, an actual seat) is perceived differently than being denied something you do not have in your possession. This is well-established in behavioral sciences. It is called the endowment effect. You have no idea if this doctor would have reacted in the same manner if denied boarding. Certainly, the likelihood of the flight being delayed because he had to be dragged off would have been significantly reduced.

Moreover, being denied boarding gives the airline and the passenger more time to find an alternative rather than waiting until the plane is full and then taking someone off the plane. Especially if the passenger's luggage is not carry on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They don't break the numbers down for each, but people don't get where they are going when they want all the time.

Agreed, but I don't think you can support 'this situation' happens a hundred times a day, can you?

This makes it sound like Dr was the first person never to make it to the final destination at the right time.

What is 'this?'

There are instances where people have just said yes when they are bumped when sitting on the plane.

"Instances."
Okay.
How many?
How often are people actually bumped when they have actually boarded?

And, still, the fact that they went along with it does not mean that it is legally required for everyone to go along with it. People put up with all kinds of things that they don't really have to, did they but know it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wrong.

If he had be denied at the door he still misses his flight.

For some reason, you seem unable to comprehend that taking something away (in this case, an actual seat) is perceived differently than being denied something you do not have in your possession. This is well-established in behavioral sciences. It is called the endowment effect. You have no idea if this doctor would have reacted in the same manner if denied boarding. Certainly, the likelihood of the flight being delayed because he had to be dragged off would have been significantly reduced.

Moreover, being denied boarding gives the airline and the passenger more time to find an alternative rather than waiting until the plane is full and then taking someone off the plane. Especially if the passenger's luggage is not carry on.

Being able to board a flight has its upsides too. It gives both connecting flights and passengers arriving later have a better opportunity to make the flight. The airlines will have to make a decision earlier resulting in more missed flights. So the person gave up lots of upsides for a minor inconvenience of having to talk an extra 150 feet.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, but I don't think you can support 'this situation' happens a hundred times a day, can you?

This makes it sound like Dr was the first person never to make it to the final destination at the right time.

What is 'this?'

There are instances where people have just said yes when they are bumped when sitting on the plane.

"Instances."
Okay.
How many?
How often are people actually bumped when they have actually boarded?

And, still, the fact that they went along with it does not mean that it is legally required for everyone to go along with it. People put up with all kinds of things that they don't really have to, did they but know it.

I doubt we can find the exact breakdown of the numbers of each.

and for the last remark, there are times where not being a jerk about something because you can be makes things better for everyone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I doubt we can find the exact breakdown of the numbers of each.

Probably. But then my objection still stands, you can't justify saying THIS situation happens 100 times a day.

and for the last remark, there are times where not being a jerk about something because you can be makes things better for everyone.

Yeah, standing up for your actual legal rights against a corporation throwing their weight around illegally, that's just being a jerk. Letting the corporation do whatever they want, and get in the habit of doing whatever they want, that's better for everyone.

 

[Artemus]

Wrong. Being taken off a plane is not the same as being denied boarding.

Only on a literal definition, not end result

Imagine. Someone wanted the "literal definition" of wording used in a contract to be honored rather an after-the-fact reinterpretation that benefits the other party. What is this world coming to?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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 goes down.

Yes, you're right that your well-being goes down every time you're dragged from a plane kicking and screaming.

And you say this is happening every day to thousands of passengers? Given that fact, then you're right. I should not have criticized this passenger. He's only one typical victim out of the millions who are being dragged from planes.