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

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should the company choose any other than the least costly option?

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

My position has little to do with whether the public was worse off. I'm arguing that there's no evidence whatsoever that United absolutely had to get the crew in question on the flight in question.

United, Loren, and (apparently) you are claiming that there was no other option than to drag passengers off the plane so that their employees could get to their next gig on time. That this doctor was impeding the airline's flight operations.

There is nothing to back up that claim.

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers. And the least costly is the best choice, for the benefit of the public/consumers generally.

We can assume the profit-seeking company will generally choose the least costly option.

 

[Ford]

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers.

Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that this option was even necessary.

 

[Arctish]

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers. And the least costly is the best choice, for the benefit of the public/consumers generally.

We can assume the profit-seeking company will generally choose the least costly option.

It has not been established that the least costly option was to tell 4 seated passengers to GTFO.

Also, we can't assume that the least costly option chosen by a profit-seeking company benefits the public/consumers in any way.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is an underground cabal somewhere which secretly rewards capitalists according to how much pain they inflict onto society.

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

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 they 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.

Not at all. The onus is still on you to provide information you admit you don't have. You keep referencing rest rules, but can't prove those rules would even apply in this scenario.

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

The fallback position is that it is in the company's best interest to do what's best for the consumers/public, because doing this increases their profit margin, and we should always assume that the company does what best promotes profit. Except when they make a mistake, in which case they have all the necessary incentive to find a correction.

Nice try, but no. The criticisms of United's handling of the situations in themselves have nothing to do with rest rules, which is why LP was the one who brought them up (But refuses to expand upon to any appreciable detail) Sorry, but if LP wants to defend United's decision as an attempt to comply with a set of guidelines, then it would be REALLY HELPFUL if he could demonstrate what those guidelines are, and how forcing four random people off of a given flight was the only way they could meet such compliance. (As in, no comparable alternatives)

Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume the company has the best guidelines in place, for the sake of minimizing costs. Obviously they are trying to minimize the number of empty seats on flights, which is a good way to reduce costs or maximize revenue per flight. So they overbook, and have various ways to minimize the need to bump passengers, or ways to compensate for this when it's necessary.

It's in the company's interest to do this in the most efficient manner possible, for the sake of profit. It's their loss if they make a mistake at this, so we should trust them -- i.e., we should trust companies to do what's most profitable.

The company has nothing to gain by removing paid passengers if it can be avoided. They prefer an alternative to this, but must have found it necessary in this particular case. If there had been an alternative, they would have chosen that alternative in the interest of profit.

Do you have facts to prove that it's never necessary to remove any passengers as part of the system of overbooking in order to minimize empty seats?

Do you demand that involuntary removal of a passenger can never be the best choice in any situation, no matter what? From what do you derive that dogmatic absolute universal precept?

 

[LordKiran]

There is an underground cabal somewhere which secretly rewards capitalists according to how much pain they inflict onto society.

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

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 they 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.

Not at all. The onus is still on you to provide information you admit you don't have. You keep referencing rest rules, but can't prove those rules would even apply in this scenario.

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

The fallback position is that it is in the company's best interest to do what's best for the consumers/public, because doing this increases their profit margin, and we should always assume that the company does what best promotes profit. Except when they make a mistake, in which case they have all the necessary incentive to find a correction.

Nice try, but no. The criticisms of United's handling of the situations in themselves have nothing to do with rest rules, which is why LP was the one who brought them up (But refuses to expand upon to any appreciable detail) Sorry, but if LP wants to defend United's decision as an attempt to comply with a set of guidelines, then it would be REALLY HELPFUL if he could demonstrate what those guidelines are, and how forcing four random people off of a given flight was the only way they could meet such compliance. (As in, no comparable alternatives)

Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume the company has the best guidelines in place, for the sake of minimizing costs. Obviously they are trying to minimize the number of empty seats on flights, which is a good way to reduce costs or maximize revenue per flight. So they overbook, and have various ways to minimize the need to bump passengers, or ways to compensate for this when it's necessary.

It's in the company's interest to do this in the most efficient manner possible, for the sake of profit. It's their loss if they make a mistake at this, so we should trust them -- i.e., we should trust companies to do what's most profitable.

The company has nothing to gain by removing paid passengers if it can be avoided. They prefer an alternative to this, but must have found it necessary in this particular case. If there had been an alternative, they would have chosen that alternative in the interest of profit.

Do you have facts to prove that it's never necessary to remove any passengers as part of the system of overbooking in order to minimize empty seats?

Do you demand that involuntary removal of a passenger can never be the best choice in any situation, no matter what? From what do you derive that dogmatic absolute universal precept?

We should? Why?

I've done this enough times to get some kind of meme medal, but once again I point to the myth of the rational voter (Or in this case, 'rational actor') Companies are not a monolithic hive-mind. A lot of corporate management comes down to delegation, to actors who might not see beyond their own immediate bubble, or aren't interested in making decisions that are necessarily the best for the company, but rather what creates the least amount of work for themselves. I can pretty much assure you that whoever made this decision wasn't some top-level executive, or anyone who is remotely invested in the reputation of the United Airlines corporate brand.

 

[Ford]

Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume the company has the best guidelines in place, for the sake of minimizing costs.

So ignoring any other factors, you will always assume that the company is always right.

You must be a helluva employee. "Whatever you say, boss."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

key words: LEAST COSTLY, i.e., most profitable, i.e., in the best interest of the public.

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers.

Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that this option was even necessary.

Maybe it wasn't "necessary" -- but it was the least costly option.* The company would have chosen a less costly option if they could have figured one out at that time. (Maybe by now they have figured out a cheaper option.)

*It was least costly, minus the subsequent lawsuit and bad publicity cost, which they could not have predicted because usually passengers comply with the lawful procedure and do not put up a fuss and scream and make a scene, which the company should not have to anticipate from civilized humans.

 

[LordKiran]

Unless you can prove otherwise, we should assume the company has the best guidelines in place, for the sake of minimizing costs.

So ignoring any other factors, you will always assume that the company is always right.

You must be a helluva employee. "Whatever you say, boss."

No, but that companies are akin to computers, the parts of which all act in perfect synchronization towards the meeting of a goal. This is actually even dumber.

Lum either doesn't understand the pro's and con's of delegation, or simply doesn't care.

 

[LordKiran]

Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that this option was even necessary.

Maybe it wasn't "necessary" -- but it was the least costly option.* The company would have chosen a less costly option if they could have figured one out at that time. (Maybe by now they have figured out a cheaper option.)

*It was least costly, minus the subsequent lawsuit and bad publicity cost, which they could not have predicted because usually passengers comply with the lawful procedure and do not put up a fuss and scream and make a scene, which the company should not have to anticipate from civilized humans.

Maybe you couldn't have predicted it, but lets not attribute your shortcoming to other people, yeah?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers. And the least costly is the best choice, for the benefit of the public/consumers generally.

We can assume the profit-seeking company will generally choose the least costly option.

It has not been established that the least costly option was to tell 4 seated passengers to GTFO.

Also, we can't assume that the least costly option chosen by a profit-seeking company benefits the public/consumers in any way.

Yes we can. Because lower cost + profit motive > lower prices > good for ALL consumers > higher standard of living for all.

I.e., companies realize higher profit by passing some cost savings along to customers. So every cost-saving > lower price.

 

[Arctish]

Just so everyone is clear on this point: Dr. Dao was not fighting with the airport cops. He was on the phone with his lawyer discussing whether he was required to give up his seat or if he was within his rights to refuse when the cops decided to use force. They dragged him from his seat and caused him injuries including concussion, knocked out teeth, and a broken nose. Dr. Dao appeared to be unconscious as he was dragged down the aisle.

Witnesses say passengers had already boarded on Sunday evening at O'Hare International Airport when United asked for volunteers to take another flight the next day to make room for four United staff members who needed seats.

The airline offered $400 and a free hotel, passenger Audra D. Bridges told the Louisville Courier-Journal. When no one volunteered, the offer was doubled to $800. When there were still no bites, the airline selected four passengers to leave the flight — including the man in the video and his wife.

"They told him he had been selected randomly to be taken off the flight," Bridges said on Facebook. She said there was no incident involving the man until he was told to give up his seat.

The man said he was a doctor and that he "needed to work at the hospital the next day," passenger Jayse D. Anspach said on Twitter.

"He said he wasn't going to [get off the plane]," Bridges wrote on Facebook. "He was talking to his lawyer on the phone."

Then United brought in security.

Both Bridges and Anspach posted videos of three security officers, who appear to be wearing the uniforms of Chicago aviation police, wrenching the man out of his seat, prompting wails. His face appeared to strike an armrest. Then they dragged his limp body down the aisle.

Footage shows the man was bleeding from the mouth as they dragged him away. His glasses were askew and his shirt was riding up over his belly.

"It looked like he was knocked out, because he went limp and quiet and they dragged him out of the plane like a rag doll," Anspach wrote.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-removed-from-united-flight-prompting-outcry

 

[barbos]

The man said he was a doctor and that he "needed to work at the hospital the next day,"

This is weird, I was reading about rules on this and they said that passengers were usually allowed to explain why they can't be be thrown out of the plane and doctors were specifically mentioned as an example of good excuse.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes we can. Because lower cost + profit motive > lower prices > good for ALL consumers > higher standard of living for all.

I.e., companies realize higher profit by passing some cost savings along to customers. So every cost-saving > lower price.

So, you've never heard of a 'loss leader?'
Supermarkets will advertise big sales on some products, and habitually charge less-than-cost on certain products, in an attempt to get customers to do their shopping in that store. But they cover their loses by charging extra on other products. So they're not passing on lower costs as much as they are fooling people into spending money there.

Various industries have various tricks to try to get people to spend money they don't need to, to increase company profits NOT consumer standard of living. The supermarkets arrange goods to make the higher mark-up items more attractive, and increase the time spent in the store which directly increases the money spent in the store, for example.

Really, what would be best for any company would be if we just gave them money without expecting anything in return. This would maximize their profits and minimize our standard of living.
They spend a lot of time trying to convince us to buy things we don't need, or to upgrade past the minimum we need to the super-high-value-upper-shiny version,
There's no reason to think that what's best for company profits = consumer standard of living.

 

[RavenSky]

I believe this has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating given how many people are still insisting United did nothing wrong:

United Airlines has changed its policy in response to the violent removal of a passenger last week and will not allow employees to take the place of passengers who have already boarded overbooked flights.

Note to those people trying to insist that Dr. Dao was not "boarded" because the airplane doors weren't yet closed: "passengers who have already boarded". Even United acknowledges that 'on airplane' is "boarded"

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflo...united-changes-policy-wont-force-boarded.html

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is weird, I was reading about rules on this and they said that passengers were usually allowed to explain why they can't be be thrown out of the plane and doctors were specifically mentioned as an example of good excuse.

It's not all that weird when you consider just how much of this event revolves around the people not knowing what the rules actually are.

 

[ZiprHead]

^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!

Because you keep saying stupid shit like this.

There is an underground cabal somewhere which secretly rewards capitalists according to how much pain they inflict onto society.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I believe this has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating given how many people are still insisting United did nothing wrong:

United Airlines has changed its policy in response to the violent removal of a passenger last week and will not allow employees to take the place of passengers who have already boarded overbooked flights.

Note to those people trying to insist that Dr. Dao was not "boarded" because the airplane doors weren't yet closed: "passengers who have already boarded". Even United acknowledges that 'on airplane' is "boarded"

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflo...united-changes-policy-wont-force-boarded.html

Except they are mechanisms for Dr Dao to do something about it. He gets off the plane and sues and then the courts settle the issue of whether or not it was a breach of contract.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is weird, I was reading about rules on this and they said that passengers were usually allowed to explain why they can't be be thrown out of the plane and doctors were specifically mentioned as an example of good excuse.

It's not all that weird when you consider just how much of this event revolves around the people not knowing what the rules actually are.

The issue here is that the rules aren't clear. This is one of the cases where it would have been better if there were more specific rules. But we do have a mechanism for determining the rules of contract and the Dr could have gotten off the plane and sued.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not all that weird when you consider just how much of this event revolves around the people not knowing what the rules actually are.

The issue here is that the rules aren't clear. This is one of the cases where it would have been better if there were more specific rules. But we do have a mechanism for determining the rules of contract and the Dr could have gotten off the plane and sued.

Or he could have held to the position that the lack of specific rules means that they had no right to remove him from the aircraft and then he could have called his lawyer to get clarification on the matter before submitting to potentially illegal commands. If United did not have the legal right to remove him, he's under no obligation to submit to their demands that he go.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The issue here is that the rules aren't clear.

It seems to me that the rules were pretty clear right up until the event went viral. Suddenly there's ambiguity because if we actually read the rules, we may not be able to defend the airline.