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

[Keith&Co.]

There must be cases every day of a dispute between a passenger and the company over limited seating, where the passenger has to get off the plane.

Must be? Daily?

G'head and find some evidence of that, then.

We'll wait, confident that you can support this, and it's not another case of you just making shit up based on how you think the universe bends over backwards to support your theories...

 

[laughing dog]

Decisions in society should be based on who screams the loudest.

I cannot decide which is stronger here - the irony or the dumbness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 .

In Illinois you can't resist even an unlawful arrest. Only if excessive force is used, but pulling from the seat is not that.

Isn't that the law everywhere in the US? Submit at the time, sort it out in court later.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but you made a veiled threat there.

A threat would have been "I might go postal". I was clearly referring to the fact that such treatment might piss someone ELSE off enough to 'go postal'. He just didn't like the phrase. Apparently, after due consideration he knew that, or he wouldn't have feigned calling security.

No. "I might go postal" is an overt threat. "Somebody might go postal" when you're one of the people involved is a veiled threat.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

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.

I'm not sure it has cost them a fortune.

The stock price has dropped--but in time this will blow over and the stock price will come back.

 

[laughing dog]

No. "I might go postal" is an overt threat. "Somebody might go postal" when you're one of the people involved is a veiled threat.

Not necessarily. "Going postal" can be used as a descriptor. Seehttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=going%20postal

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Or, if the company was right, then it means that society is best served if the agreed rules are enforced, even when an individual is inconvenienced, and special exceptions are not made for those who scream louder.

If the agreed upon rules were enforced, that would be a valid argument. Given the topic of the thread, however, it's not really related.

One of the rules is that a passenger must obey a security officer or law enforcement officer telling him to deboard. A further rule is that any dispute over this must be resolved at a different time and place, not on board just before departure.

We know the passenger violated this latter rule. The other rules, prior to the altercation incident, are still being sorted out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And the other mechanism is passive resistance. Had he gotten off the airplane, United would have said he did so voluntarily There was nothing "voluntary" about it, obviously.

United was in the wrong. They know & acknowledge it, even if you refuse to do so. As I said before, I am frankly shocked at your position on this topic. I never thought of you as one of the authoritarian boot-licker bunch. I guess I was wrong.

No. The term has a specific meaning in this case.

"Voluntary denied boarding"--you agree with the airline about compensation to be received in exchange for giving up your seat. Said compensation can take any mutually acceptable form and need not be monetary at all. (For example, accepting a bump in exchange for a first class seat on the later flight.)

"Involuntary denied boarding"--the airline doesn't let you on/makes you get off. If it's over IIRC 4 hours you get 4x your ticket (or the cheapest ticket if you are on a non-monetary ticket) up to $1,350. This must be paid in cash or cash equivalents at the time and there is a disclosure they are required to give you.

Both types of events are reportable to the FAA.

Note that there are some dirty gate agents who trick IDBed passengers into signing paperwork that says it was a VDB. That is a separate issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While there seems to be a valid discrepancy in the accounts, this was really really really not the time for United Airlines to be complete assholes to yet more paying customers... especially a couple on their way to their wedding:

The turbulence continues for United Airlines.

A bride and groom from Utah headed to their wedding in Costa Rica were kicked off their flight out of Houston on Saturday, KHOU reported.

Michael Hohl and his fianceé, Amber Maxwell, arrived from Salt Lake City for a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, where they boarded Flight 1737 bound for the city of Liberia.

The couple noticed a man spread across their row snoozing when they approached their seats, Hohl told the station.

Not wanting to wake him, Hohl said they decided to sit three rows up — thinking it would not matter because the flight was half-full with several empty rows.

“We thought not a big deal, it’s not like we are trying to jump up into a first-class seat,” Hohl said. “We were simply in an economy row a few rows above our economy seat.”

But in a Boeing 737-800 like the one the couple was on, the airline considers Row 21 “economy plus,” an upgrade.

A flight attendant asked the couple if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple said they weren’t and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead they were told to return to their assigned seats, Hohl said.

He said that after complying with the flight attendant’s instruction, a sky marshal asked them to get off the plane.

But the Transportation Security Administration disputed his assertion.

“No Federal Air Marshals were involved in this alleged incident,” the agency, which supervises the Federal Air Marshal Service, told The Post in a statement.

United also told The Post that no air marshal or authorities other than the flight crew were involved in the incident.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/17/couple-on-the-way-to-their-wedding-kicked-off-united-flight/

Sorry, but they are almost certainly not telling the truth here. This incident doesn't add up, much more likely is that they either refused to move to their proper seats or slipped back up to the seats they were trying to take. Either would likely get them tossed off the flight.

There's also the little detail that if there had been a sky marshal on the flight he wouldn't have gotten involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Sit in an airline seat. How do you hit your head on an armrest without first breaking your back? I don't think even a contortionist could do it.

Thus the only way it happens is while you are standing, falling forward onto some other armrest. However, if they're dragging him off he's not going to be falling in any direction.

The only way this makes sense is if he broke free of their grip with enough force to lose his balance in the process.

- - - 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. 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.

Yup. I have no sympathy for those who are injured while resisting arrest except in cases where the cops confuse medical situations with resistance.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Sit in an airline seat. How do you hit your head on an armrest without first breaking your back? I don't think even a contortionist could do it.

Thus the only way it happens is while you are standing, falling forward onto some other armrest. However, if they're dragging him off he's not going to be falling in any direction.

The only way this makes sense is if he broke free of their grip with enough force to lose his balance in the process.

What would happen if they are pulling him face first from his seat to the aisle? He would hit the armest across the aisle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

If the crew didn't fly the flights they were being sent to fly would not fly--a far greater disruption than kicking this guy off the plane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is you are imposing an impossible burden here. This exact set of circumstances does not appear to have occurred before. However, the components have:

1) People do get booted even after boarding. It's much less common than being denied boarding in the first place but it does happen, sometimes due to overbooking, sometimes due to weather. (Weather situations that mean the plane has to go out with less than a full load.)

2) If people refuse to leave the aircraft when ordered off the cops haul them off. It's usually drunks this happens to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

By the by, Loren. I hope you don't think I've forgotten about this. I still expect for you to explain to me how my observations are demonstrably incorrect or to acknowledge that you were talking out of your rear when you said this.

You have already shown you do not know some of the relevant rules.

However, you are claiming that they could have done better without having evidence of what better they could have done.

This is just the usual liberal faith that there's a good answer if you just look hard enough. It's just as wrong as the crap we see out of religions basing decisions on faith.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The other option which should have be done was that the pilot gets out and investigates and makes a final stance. If he says that he doesn't believe the passenger in a position to comply with flight attendants instructions he can be kicked. Or they canel the flight.

No, the other options have already been explained several times. Putting the crew on a later flight. Putting the crew on another airline's flight. Putting them in a cab to catch a flight out of Midway. Renting them a car for the 4 1/2 hour drive to Louisville.

All these options could have been explored before making the decision to forcibly remove passengers from an airplane.

Of course, we don't know what time the crew's next flight was scheduled to leave Louisville, leaving the question of "rest rules" unanswered and unanswerable for the time being. If it was the first flight the next morning, then the delay caused by the fracas guaranteed that they would not be able to comply with the rules, thus stranding that flight as well. Since that flight apparently took off on time the next day, I think we can safely say they weren't that crew.

We don't know what flight it was. How do you know it didn't take off late due to late arrival of crew? (And, yes, "late arrival of crew" can mean they were sleeping in their hotel due to crew rest rules when they were scheduled to show up.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sit in an airline seat. How do you hit your head on an armrest without first breaking your back? I don't think even a contortionist could do it.

Thus the only way it happens is while you are standing, falling forward onto some other armrest. However, if they're dragging him off he's not going to be falling in any direction.

The only way this makes sense is if he broke free of their grip with enough force to lose his balance in the process.

What would happen if they are pulling him face first from his seat to the aisle? He would hit the armest across the aisle.

I don't think that's mechanically possible. His own armrest would be in the way. You're going to have to lift someone *up* to get them out.

 

[Ford]

No, the other options have already been explained several times. Putting the crew on a later flight. Putting the crew on another airline's flight. Putting them in a cab to catch a flight out of Midway. Renting them a car for the 4 1/2 hour drive to Louisville.

All these options could have been explored before making the decision to forcibly remove passengers from an airplane.

Of course, we don't know what time the crew's next flight was scheduled to leave Louisville, leaving the question of "rest rules" unanswered and unanswerable for the time being. If it was the first flight the next morning, then the delay caused by the fracas guaranteed that they would not be able to comply with the rules, thus stranding that flight as well. Since that flight apparently took off on time the next day, I think we can safely say they weren't that crew.

We don't know what flight it was. How do you know it didn't take off late due to late arrival of crew? (And, yes, "late arrival of crew" can mean they were sleeping in their hotel due to crew rest rules when they were scheduled to show up.)

No, we don't know what flight it was. Until such information is made available, we have no way of knowing. You continue to imply that it was an early morning flight, thus making crew rest rules an issue, but you have no evidence to back up that implication. Until you provide some evidence, you should probably put that argument on the back burner.

 

[LordKiran]

By the by, Loren. I hope you don't think I've forgotten about this. I still expect for you to explain to me how my observations are demonstrably incorrect or to acknowledge that you were talking out of your rear when you said this.

You have already shown you do not know some of the relevant rules.[1]

However, you are claiming that they could have done better without having evidence of what better they could have done.[2]

This is just the usual liberal faith that there's a good answer if you just look hard enough. It's just as wrong as the crap we see out of religions basing decisions on faith.[3]

1. You have yet to prove that the rules are actually relevant.

2. Said evidence is abundant throughout this thread. I don't feel any particular need to repeat information that is already available to you.



3. To restate my prior post, my observations are as follows:

1: Companies like United are globe spanning conglomerates, the functioning of which is impossible without the delegation of administrative duties to lower-level staff.

2: If said staff members are not appropriately invested in the well being of the company, they may be prone to making decisions based on what is convenient for themselves and their immediate workflow, with little regard for the bigger picture.

3: In light of observations 1 and 2, there is reason to not assume that a company will automatically work towards the best outcome in every situation, as if all members of said corporation are always on the same page 100% of the time


You can either show me how these observations are wrong, or you can back down and move on...Or you can continue trying to out-bluff me, as if I didn't just call your bluff.
If you're worried about humiliating me or something then don't be. Go right ahead. Show the whole world how misguided I am. My ego can take the hit.

What I will not stand for is you talking down to me and then trying not to answer for it.

 

[beero1000]

What would happen if they are pulling him face first from his seat to the aisle? He would hit the armest across the aisle.

I don't think that's mechanically possible. His own armrest would be in the way. You're going to have to lift someone *up* to get them out.

It's on video, from multiple angles, posted several times in these threads. Loren's reaction?

 

[RavenSky]

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?

I'm trying to find what flight they were going to have to make. But I'm curious. Does FAA regulations require that they consult Raven to make sure scheduling is convenient?

If you are trying to reduce your relevant and cogent response/total response rate, you are going in the wrong direction.

Her argument is that the when Republic airlines makes a decision of who needs to be in Louisville to make the next day flight has to the one she approves of.

Horseshit.

You are doing yourself no favors by further reducing your unsupported and inconsistent arguments to utter nonsense

 

[bilby]

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.'

It's even more interesting that he feels that it's OK to subscribe to an economic policy model that cannot handle the existence and behaviour of real people.

In the real world, we need policies, laws and rules that work with the people we have, not the people we conjecture we could have in some kind of dystopian world of perfect 'Stepford citizens' who always respond the way their rulers would like them to.

 

[RavenSky]

Her argument is that the when Republic airlines makes a decision of who needs to be in Louisville to make the next day flight has to the one she approves of. Produce the post where anyone said that. Asking someone to document his claim of fact is normal, especially when that someone has persistently confused his opinions and views with facts.

Here is her quote

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.

She is making the claim that whatever schedule that Republic Airlines decided on had to a specific source and time. The scheduling crew for RA didd not have to take a list of all their possible reserve crews and look through the scheduled passenger list and said we can't assign O'Hare because we have an Asian doctor who won't refuse his seat.

Wrong. YOU are making the implied claim that it had to be this standby crew and that they had to be on this specific flight - and I am challenging you on that.

Every time anyone else (including me) has suggested that United could have moved a different crew into position or put this crew on a different flight, you insist otherwise and then start talking nonsense about the weather.