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

[Artemus]

The entire argument of the pro-United posters is that if you refuse to accept a post hoc redefinition of the terms used in a contract by a corporation so that it can save some money then you should expect to get beaten up. It's beyond stupid.

 

[ksen]

Right, we should just accept that agents of the state can use force to coerce us at the bidding of rent seekers. It's like Ayn Rand herself envisioned!

dammit - still can't rep!

perfect response!

I took care of it for you. :hug:

 

[Ford]

The entire argument of the pro-United posters is that if you refuse to accept a post hoc redefinition of the terms used in a contract by a corporation so that it can save some money then you should expect to get beaten up. It's beyond stupid.

It is simpler and more stupid than that.

United, being the owners of the plane in question, can do anything to their paying customers for any reason, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Passengers have no rights, and violence is a perfectly acceptable course of action should any passenger attempt to assert such rights.

 

[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?

Sure, he could hit the seat in front. That's not an armrest, though. I'm saying it's pretty hard to hit an armrest in the situation without having resisted. There is no question he resisted soon thereafter, why are you doubting he resisted then?

Thank you for tacit admission you have no actual evidence to support your claim. There is no reason to assume that this is necessarily due to resistance or even probably due to resistance.

 

[Arctish]

Sure, he could hit the seat in front. That's not an armrest, though. I'm saying it's pretty hard to hit an armrest in the situation without having resisted. There is no question he resisted soon thereafter, why are you doubting he resisted then?

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.

I am rejecting it as a reasonable outcome from the use of force. It only makes sense as an outcome of resistance to being dragged off the plane.

I don't know where you got the idea it's hard to hit an armrest when you're not in control of your direction of travel and you're in the confined space of an aircraft , but FYI the Laws of Physics are not selectively enforced.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The entire argument of the pro-United posters is that if you refuse to accept a post hoc redefinition of the terms used in a contract by a corporation so that it can save some money then you should expect to get beaten up. It's beyond stupid.

It is simpler and more stupid than that.

United, being the owners of the plane in question, can do anything to their paying customers for any reason, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Passengers have no rights, and violence is a perfectly acceptable course of action should any passenger attempt to assert such rights.

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The entire argument of the pro-United posters is that if you refuse to accept a post hoc redefinition of the terms used in a contract by a corporation so that it can save some money then you should expect to get beaten up. It's beyond stupid.

It's not ad-hoc. It's been a established procedure for years, and I'm not sure what percentage of flights I've gone to where they ask for people to voluntary their seat assignment. Do people know that if they don't find a volunteer that someone might be picked to not get on the flight? The DOT even gives instructions on how not to be IDBed.

 

[Ford]

It is simpler and more stupid than that.

United, being the owners of the plane in question, can do anything to their paying customers for any reason, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Passengers have no rights, and violence is a perfectly acceptable course of action should any passenger attempt to assert such rights.

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Of course not. Gate agents are not allowed to beat down customers. Neither are flight attendants. For that, they have to call security, and in this case defenders of United seem to be making the case that once the customer has decided not to comply with security, all bets are off, and whatever injuries sustained are deserved.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Of course not. Gate agents are not allowed to beat down customers. Neither are flight attendants. For that, they have to call security, and in this case defenders of United seem to be making the case that once the customer has decided not to comply with security, all bets are off, and whatever injuries sustained are deserved.

So it's not absolute that you said they can beat down a passenger. The blame would lie with that security organization if they did not have a right to do it and needed to call police. The question is if they are police because yes police can remove someone by force if they refuse to leave a plane they were told to leave.

 

[bilby]

It is simpler and more stupid than that.

United, being the owners of the plane in question, can do anything to their paying customers for any reason, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Passengers have no rights, and violence is a perfectly acceptable course of action should any passenger attempt to assert such rights.

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Of course not.

The agent would have to ask a policeman or security guard to do the head slamming.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How is it a screw up when weather delays cause your flight crew to go over FAA working hours limit? So they find another crew that's eligible to go on the plane and they work on getting them in time.

Provide factual evidence with links to your sources showing that "weather delays" caused the problem.

Or are you just making shit up again?

No..the crew that was supposed to go overworked it's hours that it was allowed to fly. They found a replacement crew to go to Louisville out of O'Hare.

But here is a story in general. A storm on Wed in Atlanta canceled hundreds of flights as late as Sunday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/08/flight-chaos-cancellations-persist-delta-days-after-storms/100207450/

- - - Updated - - -

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Of course not.

The agent would have to ask a policeman or security guard to do the head slamming.

So when United called security they said, "Go slam his head?"

 

[Ford]

No..the crew that was supposed to go overworked it's hours that it was allowed to fly. They found a replacement crew to go to Louisville out of O'Hare.

This word salad seems to say that the crew which absolutely had to be sitting in the doctor's seat(s) did not absolutely have to be there. Is that correct? If so, can you provide a source?

 

[bilby]

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Of course not.

The agent would have to ask a policeman or security guard to do the head slamming.

So when United called security they said, "Go slam his head?"

Of course not. That would have undermined deniability for both parties.

Criminals are under no obligation to make it easy for us to prosecute them for their crimes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction. For starters they shouldn't have overbooked the plane. If they couldn't bribe anybody to get off the plan they'd just have to find a way to transport their staff on another plane. Is this really that complicated to figure out?



This was a PR disaster. No need to change the rules. They've already been punished. I'm sure they've learned their lesson.

First of all, this was not an "overbooked flight". The airline fucked up and needed 4 more seats for their own staff in order to avoid a fine from the FAA for failing to staff the appropriate locations in legal way in the first place.

Second of all, "overbooked" is a term that I would like to lose from our vocabulary, with respect to some thing that airlines are expected to do. It is one thing to take more reservations for a thing than you have space for, expecting people will not show up, for which you do not accept payment until the customer shows up. like every single other business establishment in existence... they cannot charge you for not showing up to your dinner reservation - they just give the table to someone else that is willing to pay for it. They can choose not to accept future reservations from you if you abuse that.

When the airline accepts your money, there better be a service waiting for you when you arrive on time in the agreed upon location. If not, then the airline is committing fraud. You cannot legally sell something (take money for it) with no intention or possibility of providing it (if you sell 500 seats on a 450 seat plane, you have committed 50 counts of fraud).

I believe the Asian gentleman is suing their socks off atm. They have to weigh fines and bad bad PR against profit

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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

They applied their policies, and it has cost them a fucking massive fortune already, with more cost almost certainly coming.

But only because a lynch-mob of hysterical idiots have been whipped up into a frenzy over the incident.

Their guidelines are best for the sake of saving cost and serving the customers, as long as everyone follows the rules. But the unpredictable cost of a passenger disobeying the rules and going bezirk and causing a scene is not due to anything wrong about the guidelines. The company has no way to predict when such a fluke incident will happen.

If direct observation isn't proof enough for you, then nothing is. When you drop a brick on your toe, you cease to need assumptions about whether or not bricks are affected by gravity.

But you're observing what happened AFTER the fluke event with this abnormal passenger. How could they have predicted that he would refuse to cooperate? They had no reason to make such a prediction. They assumed he was a normal passenger who would comply with the rules like all the others. Why should they not have assumed this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But only because a lynch-mob of hysterical idiots have been whipped up into a frenzy over the incident.

I find it interesting that you figure that the side so many lawyers are on, including United's, is the one of 'hysterical idiots.'

 

[RavenSky]

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Given Loren's long posting history, I am quite certain he would find a way to blame Dr. Dao rather than find fault with the police/security/neighborhood watch.

As for you, you tell me

 

[RavenSky]

The entire argument of the pro-United posters is that if you refuse to accept a post hoc redefinition of the terms used in a contract by a corporation so that it can save some money then you should expect to get beaten up. It's beyond stupid.

It's not ad-hoc. It's been a established procedure for years, and I'm not sure what percentage of flights I've gone to where they ask for people to voluntary their seat assignment. Do people know that if they don't find a volunteer that someone might be picked to not get on the flight? The DOT even gives instructions on how not to be IDBed.

You have still failed to show that it's been "established procedure for years" to involuntarily and violently remove an innocent paying passenger from an airplane after the airline personnel having already boarded said passenger onto the airplane.

Repeating your mantra about bumpings at the gate will never ever make it apply to this situation.

 

[RavenSky]

Provide factual evidence with links to your sources showing that "weather delays" caused the problem.

Or are you just making shit up again?

No..the crew that was supposed to go overworked it's hours that it was allowed to fly. They found a replacement crew to go to Louisville out of O'Hare.

Again, provide factual evidence with links to your sources supporting this claim - particularly that it had to be THIS standby crew and that they had to be on THIS specific flight.

But here is a story in general.

I don't care about your stories in general. You brought "weather delays" into the discussion as if it had something to do with THIS situation. I'll take it, then, that you were just making shit up?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So based on that reason if the Dr got to the checkout counter and the agent came up behind him and slammed his head into the desk and said sorry you weren't allowed on this flight, do you think that Loren or I would say that was allowed?

Given Loren's long posting history, I am quite certain he would find a way to blame Dr. Dao rather than find fault with the police/security/neighborhood watch.

As for you, you tell me

It's another one of his strawmen.

How they WOULD have MAYBE reacted to DIFFERENT details/circumstances is only a question of how consistent they are, or what they are consistent to, not part of an impression of their arguments offered THIS time, for THIS event.

The argument remains that it was United's property, they can do what they want, and have done so for years, and he only got hurt because he resisted, so it's his fault.