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

[Tom Sawyer]

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

No, it's an occupancy issue. Their business model involves having people rent out portions of their property for a set period. He had paid to occupy that seat and had taken up occupancy, which makes it very different than merely having a ticket and not being on the plane yet. The pilot doesn't get the final word, the law gets the final word and if the law is unclear, it's interpreted in the most adverse way for the people who wrote the unclear rules. The pilot also had numerous untried options available to him before calling the police and the police had numerous untried options available to them before dragging him off - most notably having the guy finish the call with his lawyer and maybe getting an opinion on the matter from somebody who wasn't completely uninformed about what the actual rules were.

 

[fromderinside]

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

No, it's an occupancy issue. Their business model involves having people rent out portions of their property for a set period. He had paid to occupy that seat and had taken up occupancy, which makes it very different than merely having a ticket and not being on the plane yet. The pilot doesn't get the final word, the law gets the final word and if the law is unclear, it's interpreted in the most adverse way for the people who wrote the unclear rules. The pilot also had numerous untried options available to him before calling the police and the police had numerous untried options available to them before dragging him off - most notably having the guy finish the call with his lawyer and maybe getting an opinion on the matter from somebody who wasn't completely uninformed about what the actual rules were.

What? Be reasonable? Are you a communist out to destroy alt-populism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you a communist out to destroy ...

Yes. It doesn't matter what word you put at the end of that sentence. I want to burn it all down for the sake of evil, just like all good communists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction.

The major airlines seemed to have stopped worrying about customer satisfaction years ago. Hopefully this will shake them up a bit and also get consumers to start kicking up a fuss about the shoddy treatment we have to put up with.

Don't think so. I think tourists will continue to only stare at the price tag. "Sure, they beat an innocent traveller up and threw him off the plane, but it is 5 dollar cheaper". Won't really affect business travellers since they're not thrown off planes anyway. I don't think much will happen. But it has still been a disaster for the PR. Their staff won't want to work their. The good staff will find other employers. Stuff like that will happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try some reality.

Every airline has a limit on what they will offer. On most airlines that limit is what it would cost to IDB a passenger.

They never reached that limit. You already know this since you were told at least 5 times now.. Are you just ignoring information that doesn't let you continue to whinge? Seems counter-productive.

We don't know if they reached the limit or not. You're thinking of the $1,350--but that's an overall limit. IDB compensation for long enough (and this was) delays is 4x fare (or the lowest fare on the plane if you are on an award ticket) up to $1,350. If there were 4 passengers on there that had paid $200 then $800 is the IDB cost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yet you seem to think you know more about what they can do than they do. If they can't get it right, how can you--an outsider who doesn't even know the applicable rules--hope to do better?

- - - Updated - - -

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."

Better than your automatic assumption the company is wrong if you don't like the outcome.

 

[Ford]

Better than your automatic assumption the company is wrong if you don't like the outcome.

You're not exactly the person who should be throwing out accusations of automatic assumptions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

Furthermore, you don't get to call your lawyer and ask if you need to comply with the cops. You comply and then call your lawyer.

Besides, his running back onto the plane and clinging to a post shows he's seriously out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

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

PR move, it doesn't change whether they were right or wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Which is clearly wrong. Refusing to leave when told to is a criminal matter. If they shouldn't have done so that's a civil matter. Criminal trumps civil. If they were wrong to remove him the recourse is to sue, not to fight the cops.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

Furthermore, you don't get to call your lawyer and ask if you need to comply with the cops. You comply and then call your lawyer.

Besides, his running back onto the plane and clinging to a post shows he's seriously out of it.

It's nice to know that there really isn't a case of police brutality that you can't justify and explain away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The disturbing thing about all this is that a mega-corp used taxpayers' money to violently impose their will upon a customer, and nobody seems to see that as a harbinger of the way things are going. It's a cultural outgrowth of the Cheato "philosophy".

Why should we see a long-standing policy as a harbinger of change? This is how it's always worked--you can get bumped even after boarding.

 

[beero1000]

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

Furthermore, you don't get to call your lawyer and ask if you need to comply with the cops. You comply and then call your lawyer.

Besides, his running back onto the plane and clinging to a post shows he's seriously out of it.

It's nice to know that there really isn't a case of police brutality that you can't justify and explain away.

FFS, it's on video! Talk about a laugh test.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

downgrade. He was totally unresponsive, so I observed "someone could go postal over that kind of treatment". He freaked out, threatened to have me arrested. I was pissed - "You're going to arrest me for ... WHAT? Using the word "postal" in an airport? THAT'S customer service!" He picked up the phone like he was calling security. I sat down in the gate area, waiting to see what would happen. Nothing happened.
That was my first inkling that UAL didn't give a shit about their customers' experience. The beaten doc just got the latest update to that policy...

Sorry, but you made a veiled threat there.

Saying "somebody might go postal" when you're one of the people involved is a hint that you might go postal about it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

No, it's an occupancy issue. Their business model involves having people rent out portions of their property for a set period. He had paid to occupy that seat and had taken up occupancy, which makes it very different than merely having a ticket and not being on the plane yet. The pilot doesn't get the final word, the law gets the final word and if the law is unclear, it's interpreted in the most adverse way for the people who wrote the unclear rules. The pilot also had numerous untried options available to him before calling the police and the police had numerous untried options available to them before dragging him off - most notably having the guy finish the call with his lawyer and maybe getting an opinion on the matter from somebody who wasn't completely uninformed about what the actual rules were.

Actually it's not a occupancy law that happens in this case, it's common carrier law. A policeman doesn't need to pull out his phone and google all the cases regarding common carrier especially since the CoC provides multiple ways for them to get the passenger off. The issue of this is what definition of boarding applies and a cop doesn't need to know contracts to know for sure.


As LP pointed out, you can't stall with a cop sayin gthat you are talking to your lawyer. He could be talking to his mom and lying about it. You comply with the officer and then sue afterward.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's nice to know that there really isn't a case of police brutality that you can't justify and explain away.

FFS, it's on video! Talk about a laugh test.

So what about the video? It shows the cops ordering him off and him refusing to go. It doesn't matter if he's talking to his lawyer, he still refused a reasonable order from a cop so they used force.

 

[beero1000]

FFS, it's on video! Talk about a laugh test.

So what about the video? It shows the cops ordering him off and him refusing to go. It doesn't matter if he's talking to his lawyer, he still refused a reasonable order from a cop so they used force.

Thanks for verifying it to everyone - you make your conclusions without examining any of the available evidence and then refuse to back down from them.

 

[laughing dog]

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

First, let's try some basic reading comprehension. The report referred to an armrest not a particular armrest. Now, let's try some intellectually honest thinking. Pulling someone out of seat can occur a number of ways. If the pulled person loses balance or is suddenly pulled more forward than upwards, it is possible for a face to hit an armrest or part of a seat or even the back of the seat in front of him.

Your assumption of what must have happened is not a fact of what actually happened. It is possible the report is incorrect. It is possible that the report is accurate. Do you have any actual evidence (not biased conjecture) that calls that report into question?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

First, let's try some basic reading comprehension. The report referred to an armrest not a particular armrest. Now, let's try some intellectually honest thinking. Pulling someone out of seat can occur a number of ways. If the pulled person loses balance or is suddenly pulled more forward than upwards, it is possible for a face to hit an armrest or part of a seat or even the back of the seat in front of him.

Your assumption of what must have happened is not a fact of what actually happened. It is possible the report is incorrect. It is possible that the report is accurate. Do you have any actual evidence (not biased conjecture) that calls that report into question?

I'm confused what were arguing here. They asked him to leave he said no, they pulled and it looks like he flung forward into one of the armrest, probably the other side of the aisle. So is the argument that after that issue did the police throw him against more armrests on purpose down the aisle?

 

[laughing dog]

First, let's try some basic reading comprehension. The report referred to an armrest not a particular armrest. Now, let's try some intellectually honest thinking. Pulling someone out of seat can occur a number of ways. If the pulled person loses balance or is suddenly pulled more forward than upwards, it is possible for a face to hit an armrest or part of a seat or even the back of the seat in front of him.

Your assumption of what must have happened is not a fact of what actually happened. It is possible the report is incorrect. It is possible that the report is accurate. Do you have any actual evidence (not biased conjecture) that calls that report into question?

I'm confused what were arguing here. They asked him to leave he said no, they pulled and it looks like he flung forward into one of the armrest, probably the other side of the aisle. So is the argument that after that issue did the police throw him against more armrests on purpose down the aisle?

No, the report said he hit his head against an armrest because of the use of force. LP is rejecting that as a realistic outcome. As usual, he is blaming the victim as the only possible realistic outcome of the encounter.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm confused what were arguing here. They asked him to leave he said no, they pulled and it looks like he flung forward into one of the armrest, probably the other side of the aisle. So is the argument that after that issue did the police throw him against more armrests on purpose down the aisle?

No, the report said he hit his head against an armrest because of the use of force. LP is rejecting that as a realistic outcome. As usual, he is blaming the victim as the only possible realistic outcome of the encounter.

He refused to come peacefully so they pulled and hit one of the myriad of bad things in the space. Excessive force would have been shooting the guy for not moving. Maybe they should have tazed him instead???

 

[zorq]

No, the report said he hit his head against an armrest because of the use of force. LP is rejecting that as a realistic outcome. As usual, he is blaming the victim as the only possible realistic outcome of the encounter.

He refused to come peacefully so they pulled and hit one of the myriad of bad things in the space. Excessive force would have been shooting the guy for not moving. Maybe they should have tazed him instead???

ANY force used against him would be excessive, Considering the guy had a right, legally and morally to be in the seat that he paid for .