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

[coloradoatheist]

If the FAA rules make it imperative that UA get those seats for their crew (because otherwise they risk losing millions of dollars) then that justifies UA paying up to millions of dollars (if necessary - which it likely won't be) to re-gain those seats from their customers. It does NOT justify UA beating the shit out of their customers, even if none of them will accept a million dollar offer for their seat.

And that's exactly why the airlines and FAA have the rules for getting bumped from a flight. You get compensation based on how much your flight was and how late you are. He could have easily been bumped at the door going into the hallway. The only difference between being bumped at the gate or while seated is that they were trying to be convenient to him and the other passengers so they could load and hopefully be on their way sooner rather than holding up the flight.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The funny thing is until this point, I had no idea that I could be thrown from a plane I had already boarded... because the airline had to shuffle their crew about. I had no idea I had that few of rights as a customer who had paid... check-in... and then boarded the plane.

If the FAA rules make it imperative that UA get those seats for their crew (because otherwise they risk losing millions of dollars) then that justifies UA paying up to millions of dollars (if necessary - which it likely won't be) to re-gain those seats from their customers. It does NOT justify UA beating the shit out of their customers, even if none of them will accept a million dollar offer for their seat.

And that's exactly why the airlines and FAA have the rules for getting bumped from a flight. You get compensation based on how much your flight was and how late you are. He could have easily been bumped at the door going into the hallway. The only difference between being bumped at the gate or while seated is that they were trying to be convenient to him and the other passengers so they could load and hopefully be on their way sooner rather than holding up the flight.

Your response didn't address the "beating the shit out of their customers" portion of bilby's post. It was kind of the main point.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The funny thing is until this point, I had no idea that I could be thrown from a plane I had already boarded... because the airline had to ...

My apologies, but I don't think we rational people ought to give in to terminology being used by right-wing and/or Libertarian ideologues in the thread. I take issue with the phrase "had to" because it makes it sound like transporting the crew in the plane was necessary. Further what is being considered necessary actually isn't necessary and if it is, well, then that's subjective. The bottom line is that the airline wanted (not needed) to get crew somewhere else because that would enable their continued, hoped for cash flow and if they didn't, they wouldn't get all that money from the other flight where crew were wanted. They also could have used a helicopter and likely paid more to get the crew there but they wanted to go with a known option they thought was reliable. Now, any particular customer can also have needs and wants, like in this case the doctor who says he needed to help patients by being on time. Not only did the airline want to replace passengers with crew they also wanted to do that on their own terms with their own price limits for the re-negotiation of seats. When they didn't get their way for what they wanted, they used force. Another option they could have went with was to increase the offers they made to other customers until some customer said they would exchange seats, but they didn't want to do that. They chose violence or threat of violence instead. The airline's desires do not trump customers' desires, before we even get to the issue of beating up customers. [Note I tried to use the words "desire" and "want" and derivatives thereof to sufficiently illustrate the point].

My goal here isn't to nitpick either. I want to highlight this distinction to expose why right-wingers and Libertarian ideologues in the thread support this inequality. Let's see what they say.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The funny thing is until this point, I had no idea that I could be thrown from a plane I had already boarded... because the airline had to shuffle their crew about. I had no idea I had that few of rights as a customer who had paid... check-in... and then boarded the plane.

And that's exactly why the airlines and FAA have the rules for getting bumped from a flight. You get compensation based on how much your flight was and how late you are. He could have easily been bumped at the door going into the hallway. The only difference between being bumped at the gate or while seated is that they were trying to be convenient to him and the other passengers so they could load and hopefully be on their way sooner rather than holding up the flight.

Your response didn't address the "beating the shit out of their customers" portion of bilby's post. It was kind of the main point.

\


Except it wasn't United who beat the passenger up, it was whom they thought were police. Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too. And he got lucky, or unlucky since he was flirting with trespassing on at an airport.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too.

Question authority. You have rights.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too.

Question authority. You have rights.

Yes and no. And sometimes you may think you have a right when you don't. It was a risky bet and he got lucky.

 

[KeepTalking]

The funny thing is until this point, I had no idea that I could be thrown from a plane I had already boarded... because the airline had to shuffle their crew about. I had no idea I had that few of rights as a customer who had paid... check-in... and then boarded the plane.

Your response didn't address the "beating the shit out of their customers" portion of bilby's post. It was kind of the main point.

\


Except it wasn't United who beat the passenger up, it was whom they thought were police.

I am pretty sure United knew exactly who they called, and that they were rent-a-cops, not police. They were likely banking on the passenger not understanding the difference between those two authorities, especially since those rent-a-cops were prone to representing themselves as police by wearing jackets with "POLICE" written on the back.

Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too.

Yeah, that's what the United personnel were counting on, too bad it backfired on them... wait, no, it's not too bad, it's exactly what they deserved to have happen to them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

\


Except it wasn't United who beat the passenger up, it was whom they thought were police.

I am pretty sure United knew exactly who they called, and that they were rent-a-cops, not police. They were likely banking on the passenger not understanding the difference between those two authorities, especially since those rent-a-cops were prone to representing themselves as police by wearing jackets with "POLICE" written on the back.

Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too.

Yeah, that's what the United personnel were counting on, too bad it backfired on them... wait, no, it's not too bad, it's exactly what they deserved to have happen to them.

That group of security was in between cops and ordinary security. It was run by the city, they were off duty cops. And besides that, most places use secuirty for that purpose and then security team needs to know what to do. Bars, malls, stores, etc use security before they call the police because most times they don't need the police. Security comes over, the guy leaves the bar and nobody gets arrested for disorderly conduct.

The biggest mistake United made was not having the pilot come out and tell him to leave.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Question authority. You have rights.

Yes and no. And sometimes you may think you have a right when you don't. It was a risky bet and he got lucky.

Always question authority if you have doubts. Even if you don't have doubts, try to think outside the box. Now that doesn't mean, always revolt, just always question authority.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. And sometimes you may think you have a right when you don't. It was a risky bet and he got lucky.

Always question authority if you have doubts. Even if you don't have doubts, try to think outside the box. Now that doesn't mean, always revolt, just always question authority.

And there are places and times to do that. He took a big risk for it. He could have been charged with trespassing and refusing to comply with flight instructions. He got lucky. He would have had recourse if he had gotten off the plane and he wasn't supposed, but he had a method to argue later.

 

[Arctish]

The biggest mistake United made was not having the pilot come out and tell him to leave.

The biggest mistake United made was deciding to forcibly evict a paying passenger instead of offering enough money and free airline miles to get a 4th person to give up their seat voluntarily.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The biggest mistake United made was not having the pilot come out and tell him to leave.

The biggest mistake United made was deciding to forcibly evict a paying passenger instead of offering enough money and free airline miles to get a 4th person to give up their seat voluntarily.

A business isn't there just to do business with not making money and at some time they have to make a decision so that they server 99% and hurt 1% and not always bow down to the 1 person. A doctor at some time will have to tell a patient he can't see them because their schedule becomes too booked.

As Loren said, there second option was just to deplane everybody and then not let him board again, but that made everyone worse off.

 

[bilby]

If you sold something to someone and now you want it back, there are lots of ways to get it.

You can use violence, or deceit, or you can extort it from them by any number of possible threats. You could use blackmail; you can use peer-pressure; you can threaten his friends or family; you can pay someone else to beat him up and take it from him.

You can pretend that any of these are justified actions, for any of thousands of reasons.

But the only moral thing to do is to agree with him a fair exchange. Offer him money (or goods, or services), and keep increasing your offer until either he accepts it, or the amount you need to offer exceeds the amount you are willing to pay - at which point you just have to accept that you cannot have it back, because you can't afford it.

This situation is as simple as that.

He bought a seat; UA can buy it back from him at a mutually agreed price, or they can let him keep it, or they can do something immoral. Those are the only three possibilities.

They chose the latter.

Nothing else that anyone can say about the situation changes any of this.

 

[zorq]

The biggest mistake United made was deciding to forcibly evict a paying passenger instead of offering enough money and free airline miles to get a 4th person to give up their seat voluntarily.

A business isn't there just to do business with not making money and at some time they have to make a decision so that they server 99% and hurt 1% and not always bow down to the 1 person. A doctor at some time will have to tell a patient he can't see them because their schedule becomes too booked.

This airline didn't become too booked, it got greedy and decided to steal a seat out from under a passenger who had paid for and claimed it. Maybe your analogy should look like the following: A doctor sometimes must abandon a poor patient to die sliced open on the operating table if a rich patient is brought in and offers him more money for immediate service.

As Loren said, there second option was just to deplane everybody and then not let him board again, but that made everyone worse off.

How in the **** do you STILL refuse to recognise the other humane option posted probably 50 times already in this thread?

 

[coloradoatheist]

A business isn't there just to do business with not making money and at some time they have to make a decision so that they server 99% and hurt 1% and not always bow down to the 1 person. A doctor at some time will have to tell a patient he can't see them because their schedule becomes too booked.

This airline didn't become too booked, it got greedy and decided to steal a seat out from under a passenger who had paid for and claimed it. Maybe your analogy should look like the following: A doctor sometimes must abandon a poor patient to die sliced open on the operating table if a rich patient is brought in and offers him more money for immediate service.

As Loren said, there second option was just to deplane everybody and then not let him board again, but that made everyone worse off.

How in the **** do you STILL refuse to recognise the other humane option posted probably 50 times already in this thread?

They weren't being greedy though. They needed 4 flight crew members to get to Newark so the morning flight wouldn't be delayed or possibly canceled. With all the pieces there that could have inconvenienced a thousand fliers or more. That could mean delayed flights, missed flights for a lot of people and then their customer service would have to deal with all that. It was the doctor being greedy and not being empathetic to customer service of which he should understand.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you sold something to someone and now you want it back, there are lots of ways to get it.

You can use violence, or deceit, or you can extort it from them by any number of possible threats. You could use blackmail; you can use peer-pressure; you can threaten his friends or family; you can pay someone else to beat him up and take it from him.

You can pretend that any of these are justified actions, for any of thousands of reasons.

But the only moral thing to do is to agree with him a fair exchange. Offer him money (or goods, or services), and keep increasing your offer until either he accepts it, or the amount you need to offer exceeds the amount you are willing to pay - at which point you just have to accept that you cannot have it back, because you can't afford it.

This situation is as simple as that.

He bought a seat; UA can buy it back from him at a mutually agreed price, or they can let him keep it, or they can do something immoral. Those are the only three possibilities.

They chose the latter.

Nothing else that anyone can say about the situation changes any of this.

He didn't buy the ticket at the door to the Jet. He bought it well before. They could have easily stopped him from entering the Jetway and saying, "You've been involuntarily chosen to be bumped, let's try and figure out how to get you where you are going" You agree to that when you buy the ticket. The only difference between the entrance to the Jetway and in the plane is the length of the Jetway and a few feet. However by being allowed to possibly go on it was more convenient for all the passengers and helped them get jetted off in a more timely matter.

 

[laughing dog]

It really is fascinating to watch alleged libertarians defend a company using violence to resolve a situation that easily could be resolved through voluntary market exchanges.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They weren't being greedy though. They needed ...

Not needed. Wanted.

 

[J842P]

It really is fascinating to watch alleged libertarians defend a company using violence to resolve a situation that easily could be resolved through voluntary market exchanges.

Yup. I'm pretty sure I pointed this out before.

 

[Shadowy Man]

They weren't being greedy though. They needed 4 flight crew members to get to Newark so the morning flight wouldn't be delayed or possibly canceled. With all the pieces there that could have inconvenienced a thousand fliers or more. That could mean delayed flights, missed flights for a lot of people and then their customer service would have to deal with all that. It was the doctor being greedy and not being empathetic to customer service of which he should understand.

That's quite a stretch to call the passenger the greedy one in this case. Besides, how much information did the airline give to passengers about why they needed their seats? Does anyone know?

There have been times when money was offered to get off a plane and I wasn't prepared to get off for any amount of money because of schedule issues. Would that make me greedy?

- - - Updated - - -

If you sold something to someone and now you want it back, there are lots of ways to get it.

You can use violence, or deceit, or you can extort it from them by any number of possible threats. You could use blackmail; you can use peer-pressure; you can threaten his friends or family; you can pay someone else to beat him up and take it from him.

You can pretend that any of these are justified actions, for any of thousands of reasons.

But the only moral thing to do is to agree with him a fair exchange. Offer him money (or goods, or services), and keep increasing your offer until either he accepts it, or the amount you need to offer exceeds the amount you are willing to pay - at which point you just have to accept that you cannot have it back, because you can't afford it.

This situation is as simple as that.

He bought a seat; UA can buy it back from him at a mutually agreed price, or they can let him keep it, or they can do something immoral. Those are the only three possibilities.

They chose the latter.

Nothing else that anyone can say about the situation changes any of this.

He didn't buy the ticket at the door to the Jet. He bought it well before. They could have easily stopped him from entering the Jetway and saying, "You've been involuntarily chosen to be bumped, let's try and figure out how to get you where you are going" You agree to that when you buy the ticket. The only difference between the entrance to the Jetway and in the plane is the length of the Jetway and a few feet. However by being allowed to possibly go on it was more convenient for all the passengers and helped them get jetted off in a more timely matter.

I think it has been pointed before in this thread that a seated passenger is substantially different from a contracts (and perhaps legal) point of view than an unseated one. It's disingenuous at this point in the conversation to imply that there is no distinction. Had he been bumped before boarding the scenario would have been extremely different.