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

[laughing dog]

The airlines will have to make a decision earlier resulting in more missed flights.

That makes no sense whatsover. If there x people being bumped, then x people miss their flights regardless of the timing of the decision.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Fixed it for you. The well-being of any passenger who is involuntarily bumped or taken off a plane is reduced. It has nothing to do with kicking and screaming. If this episode reduces the number of passengers who are involuntarily bumped, then their welfare improves. Duh.

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.

If you think constructing idiotic straw men to make a point improves your position, you are mistaken.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The airlines will have to make a decision earlier resulting in more missed flights.

That makes no sense whatsover. If there x people being bumped, then x people miss their flights regardless of the timing of the decision.

Fair. It will result in high involuntary bumping.

 

[laughing dog]

That makes no sense whatsover. If there x people being bumped, then x people miss their flights regardless of the timing of the decision.

Fair. It will result in high involuntary bumping.

That makes no sense unless you are claiming that airlines will engage in more over-booking and/or less compensation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Fair. It will result in high involuntary bumping.

That makes no sense unless you are claiming that airlines will engage in more over-booking and/or less compensation.

No. By boarding the plane and allowing the extra 20 minutes to get voluntary bumpers it allows for more voluntary bumping instead of involuntary bumping. If they make the decision decision earlier to bump people involuntarily because they can't board, more people will be involuntarily bumped.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And you say this is happening every day to thousands of passengers?

Please, please, please show where they say this?

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.

So, how many times WOULD it have to happen to paying customers before you'd think there was a problem in how United handled this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. By boarding the plane and allowing the extra 20 minutes to get voluntary bumpers it allows for more voluntary bumping instead of involuntary bumping.

Time was not the issue in finding four volunteers, it was how much incentive the manager was willing to offer.

If they make the decision decision earlier to bump people involuntarily because they can't board,

Exactly what does that mean, bumped involuntarily because they cannot board?
They were involuntarily bumped because they didn't get enough volunteers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Please, please, please show where they say this?

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.

So, how many times WOULD it have to happen to paying customers before you'd think there was a problem in how United handled this?

Manufacturing straw men at lower cost is good for the consumer.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Yes, in the end result. They physically and violently dragged this man off an airplane that they had already boarded him on. That is materially different from "bumping" him prior to boarding.

 

[RavenSky]

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

"everyone" being the corporation and *maybe* the 4 crew members. "Everyone" certainly does not include the doctor, his family and all of the patients he had appointments with the following morning.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

Yes, in the end result. They physically and violently dragged this man off an airplane that they had already boarded him on. That is materially different from "bumping" him prior to boarding.

It was different because he chose it to be. If at the gate and he was denied and he started making a scene about not being to board could have resulted in security showing up too and asking him to leave.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

"everyone" being the corporation and *maybe* the 4 crew members. "Everyone" certainly does not include the doctor, his family and all of the patients he had appointments with the following morning.

Problem is getting into the whole circuit. If the flight crew can't to the flight in the morning and a flight of a 100 is canceled or delayed you could have 10 doctors who can't see patients. What would the DR have done if it was bad weather?

If the guy had been a wall street banker would all of the other passengers helped push him out the door? It's interesting that since he was doctor that nobody else said hey he's more important than me, I'll volunteer.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, in the end result. They physically and violently dragged this man off an airplane that they had already boarded him on. That is materially different from "bumping" him prior to boarding.

It was different because he chose it to be. If at the gate and he was denied and he started making a scene about not being to board could have resulted in security showing up too and asking him to leave.

No. It was different because United Airlines chose to make it different. They boarded him in accordance to their own rules/systems, and then tried to revoke that boarding. That is completely different than if he were still at the gate in the airport.

 

[RavenSky]

"everyone" being the corporation and *maybe* the 4 crew members. "Everyone" certainly does not include the doctor, his family and all of the patients he had appointments with the following morning.

Problem is getting into the whole circuit. If the flight crew can't to the flight in the morning and a flight of a 100 is canceled or delayed you could have 10 doctors who can't see patients.

The problem is that you have still failed to show that this was the only crew that could have been moved into place and/or that their taking a different flight or different means of transport meant that the flight they were supposed to fly would be delayed or cancelled. You have not even shown that the flight they were supposed to fly was "in the morning"

 

[Keith&Co.]

What would the DR have done if it was bad weather?

What difference does this 'what if' make? No one would blame United for the weather. (That's Obama's weather weapon.) If he railed at United for something beyond United's control, they'd be the victims.
But United is completely responsible for the choices United made.

If the guy had been a wall street banker would all of the other passengers helped push him out the door?

What if the guy that the computer chose was mentally disabled? Someone with the mind of a child, with carefully written instructions of everything he has to do to get home, TERRIFIED that by not making THIS FLIGHT, he'll never get home, ending up lost in time, space and meaning?
Would you still consider this guy a crybaby for not wanting to get off the plane his brother expects him to be on?

It's interesting that since he was doctor that nobody else said hey he's more important than me, I'll volunteer.

I think it's far more interesting that his wife was willing to get off the plane but he thought his patients were more important.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

"Solutions" that for the most part simply show a lack of understanding of the situation.

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.

Reality: Airlines only make money when their planes are in the air. Most planes spend most of their time loading/flying/unloading.

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.

Of course I assumed it was the first flight--if it wasn't they would already have crew on the plane!

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).

AFIAK United has not released that first piece of information. I do not know the flight number of the other United flight, I do know it departed 3 hours later so it's reasonable to assume it also arrives about 3 hours later--so I added three hours to the arrival time of the problematic flight to figure when it would get there. That puts it too late for most first flights of the day.

I find it fascinating that in all the coverage of this incident, that information hasn't come out yet.

Only United knows the key piece of information.

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.

Most people that are objecting to United's behavior don't actually care about what alternatives they had. I see multiple people here saying the should have done something--with no regard for whether there was a viable something to do.

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?

It wouldn't have put anyone's life at risk because the result would not be a crew flying tired, it would be a crew not flying at all. Hundreds of inconvenienced passengers, not just 4.

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):

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.

Foot, meet bullet. All you showed is that most likely United did the right thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

You're making the assumption there was a decision involved.

Reality: They offered compensation, they still need seats, they work their way up the roster booting passengers until they have the seats they need. Predefined procedures, not decisions.

Normally it works. This guy chose to get violent instead. I put basically all the blame on him.

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

I don't give a hoot how badly he was hurt as he was hurt by his own choice, not by United. When you choose to fight the cops, too bad. This creep figured to cause enough trouble to be allowed to remain on the plane. That's certainly not the sort of passenger you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

While I agree the standard of living doesn't go down, there's no reason to say it has to be decided before they board.

Consider another case that I have encountered due to this discussion. It was a FAM that was put on at the last minute.

Choices: Boot a passenger or cancel the flight (thus booting everyone.)

What is the right choice?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

Except it is normal procedure--just a rare enough situation that most people aren't aware of it.

- - - 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.

^^^ 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)

View attachment 10700

Yet another answer that ignores crew rest rules.

 

[RavenSky]

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".

Except it is normal procedure--just a rare enough situation that most people aren't aware of it.

It is absolutely NOT "normal procedure" to take people OFF an airplane after they have been properly boarded. If you think it is, produce factual evidence with links to your sources.