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

[coloradoatheist]

"Once something has been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral." - Rev. Lovejoy, The Simpsons $pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling) 1993

Well yeah, even if it is true that's still incredibly shitty. What if you're in a dire situation to see your dying mother and the airline decides to hold you up because it gave your seat away? You can't compensate people for shit like that because shit like that is literally priceless.

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed in Newark the next morning so instead of inconveniencing 4 passengers, you delayed 150 passengers. Somestimes you are going to be on the good side and sometimes you will be on the other side.

 

[bilby]

Well yeah, even if it is true that's still incredibly shitty. What if you're in a dire situation to see your dying mother and the airline decides to hold you up because it gave your seat away? You can't compensate people for shit like that because shit like that is literally priceless.

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed in Newark the next morning so instead of inconveniencing 4 passengers, you delayed 150 passengers. Somestimes you are going to be on the good side and sometimes you will be on the other side.

So instead of compensating 4 passengers who elected to accept compensation, they tried to inconvenience 4 arbitrarily selected passengers, and when those passengers stood up against this immorality - something that was bound to happen eventually, despite them having tried to train passengers to be docile - they delayed 150.

UA Made NO ATTEMPT to 'be on the good side'; they ignored the rights of their passengers, as usual; and when someone finally stood up to this abuse, they doubled down by sending bully-boys to beat the shit out of him.

Sometimes you will get away with being on the bad side, and sometimes you will get called on it.

UA want to do what's best for UA; If that sometimes turns out to also be good for some passengers, that's purely coincidental, and they deserve no credit whatsoever for it. They get credit for being on the 'good side' if, and only if, they try to do what is best for everybody without regard for themselves. Not delaying entire plane loads of passengers needlessly is the MINIMUM acceptable response from UA, not something to be lauded. And they totally failed due entirely to their own poor choices. That's not 'being on the good side'.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well yeah, even if it is true that's still incredibly shitty. What if you're in a dire situation to see your dying mother and the airline decides to hold you up because it gave your seat away? You can't compensate people for shit like that because shit like that is literally priceless.

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

 

[LordKiran]

Also it is worth repeating that any other means of getting their crew there would have been cheaper than the means they went with ultimately ended up being. So even from the perspective of good business dealings the choice they made was STILL wrong.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Also it is worth repeating that any other means of getting their crew there would have been cheaper than the means they went with ultimately ended up being. So even from the perspective of good business dealings the choice they made was STILL wrong.

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

 

[fast]

Sounds like a good fix. I'd have to be careful though. This isn't a situation where he went looking for trouble; it's a situation where trouble came to him.

Of course you can fight the authorities, but you better make 100% sure you are in the right otherwise you could be in court facing several counts of trespassing, resisting arrest, and other charges that they could bring. If he had gotten probation for his actions or even jail time would it have been worth it?


And for LordKrains post early, can you tell me the legal definition of a lease compared to a license?

I can't be that confident, so confident that I'm 100% in the right. Things can sometimes have a way to bite you in the ass, and I don't want to become a martyr for such flimsy purposes of rights violations.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group. If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

 

[LordKiran]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

In which case its still their fault for not being flexible enough in how to resolve problems and it cost them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights.

(1) They cannot arbitrarily cancel flights and (2) if they justifiably cancel flights, the passengers must be compensated. If these are untrue, someone could sue if they wanted--to include the possibility of a class action lawsuit.

... the pilot should have come out and settled it.

What exactly do you think a pilot is? A European king from centuries before a constitution, bill of rights, and democratic society?

But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

Why do you feel the need to say this, is it minimizing or excusing what happened?

If there is fault, it lied with the security group. If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

I am not sure where "fault" is coming in to the specific narrow discussion you and I just had where you used the word "needed" instead of "wanted." Is it your understanding that someone who needs something is generally not at fault but if they want something then they would be? Is that why you bring it up? I haven't commented on the logical consequences of fault based on need or want. I have only said that they wanted the things they did. You haven't been able to refute that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group.

You mean other than letting a guy board a plane he wasn't going to be allowed to fly on?

If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

Well yeah, the whole idea that someone needs to be arrested is part of the problem here. So many right-wingers want to put people 'in their place', even if the airline told the guy he could board (twice) at check-in and then at the gate.

What is incredible is the amount of time people will commit to justifying or condoning the airline's actions here. The airline staff fucked up by letting him check-in to that flight. The airline staff fucked up letting him board. The Republic staff fucked up by not explaining things properly or finding an alternative solution to getting one more person off the plane. The security staff fucked up by impersonating police. And the passenger fucked up because he had no idea (much like myself) that he could be legally and arbitrarily thrown off a plane if the airline deemed it necessary.

 

[ZiprHead]

In other airline news.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other airline news.

While any case is wrong, four cases over the period of a year warrants an advisory? That seems a bit much.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group.

You mean other than letting a guy board a plane he wasn't going to be allowed to fly on?

If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

Well yeah, the whole idea that someone needs to be arrested is part of the problem here. So many right-wingers want to put people 'in their place', even if the airline told the guy he could board (twice) at check-in and then at the gate.

What is incredible is the amount of time people will commit to justifying or condoning the airline's actions here. The airline staff fucked up by letting him check-in to that flight. The airline staff fucked up letting him board. The Republic staff fucked up by not explaining things properly or finding an alternative solution to getting one more person off the plane. The security staff fucked up by impersonating police. And the passenger fucked up because he had no idea (much like myself) that he could be legally and arbitrarily thrown off a plane if the airline deemed it necessary.

He only needed to be arrested after first he didn't leave when the property owner told him to, and then later by security. If he had gone nicely like the other 3 then he would have go to the counter and they would have worked on alternate flight arrangements for him and compensation for missing the flight.

Could have happened to any airline anywhere, it was just the stars aligned for this action.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group.

You mean other than letting a guy board a plane he wasn't going to be allowed to fly on?

If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

Well yeah, the whole idea that someone needs to be arrested is part of the problem here. So many right-wingers want to put people 'in their place', even if the airline told the guy he could board (twice) at check-in and then at the gate.

What is incredible is the amount of time people will commit to justifying or condoning the airline's actions here. The airline staff fucked up by letting him check-in to that flight. The airline staff fucked up letting him board. The Republic staff fucked up by not explaining things properly or finding an alternative solution to getting one more person off the plane. The security staff fucked up by impersonating police. And the passenger fucked up because he had no idea (much like myself) that he could be legally and arbitrarily thrown off a plane if the airline deemed it necessary.

He only needed to be arrested after first he didn't leave when the property owner told him to, and then later by security.

He never needed to be arrested. In order to commit a crime, you actually have to be aware that you are actually committing one.

If he had gone nicely like the other 3 then he would have go to the counter and they would have worked on alternate flight arrangements for him and compensation for missing the flight.

True, if he just left and been a good drone... As I already stated, his mistake was not knowing the airline could actually be allowed to do this according to the law. That is forgivable. Impersonating a police officers is not... and it is odd they weren't charged with a crime.

Could have happened to any airline anywhere, it was just the stars aligned for this action.

You mean incompetence of staff for three companies?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bass-ackwards. You pay for the flight, not the seat. Seats are never guaranteed.

And yet they're predetermined and at different price points. Wouldn't be the case if the seats weren't whats for sale. After all a seat is a seat if the flight is what's sold, so it shouldn't particularly matter where you sit (barring children flying alone or the disabled.)

Think of it this way: You buying your ticket isn't what determines were the plane flies. It goes where it goes regardless, because you're not buying the flight, you're buying occupancy on a plane going somewhere you need to be.

What you are buying is transportation, not a seat. If something happens and your seat of choice isn't available anymore, too bad. You only get compensation if your class of service is downgraded.

The two main ways this happens:

1) The airplane changes--the bird you fly has a different seating arrangement than when you picked a seat. (Which is why the airline that never overbooks has the highest rate of denied boarding--they have more aircraft changes.)

2) There's some need for the specific seat you reserved. Common causes of this:
2a) Air marshal. They sit up front near the cockpit, there are very few acceptable seats.
2b) Not all seats have certain handicap accommodations. We've lost our seats that way--a passenger needed oxygen, we had picked the seats where the tank could be mounted in the overhead bin.

There's also the occasional airline screwup: There are rules as to where lap infants can sit and sometimes seats are assigned without considering this. When this happens the FAs are going to move people to get it legal. (Passengers are also sometimes guilty of this--swapping seats so as to set up an illegal situation. Consider two parents, two babies and an older child. They will never be allowed to sit together.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well yeah, even if it is true that's still incredibly shitty. What if you're in a dire situation to see your dying mother and the airline decides to hold you up because it gave your seat away? You can't compensate people for shit like that because shit like that is literally priceless.

Yup. And likely there are several people on the same flight who are not too bothered if they get there today or tomorrow, as long as they get there, and as long as they are not out of pocket as a result; So if the airline simply offers compensation in ever increasing amounts until they have enough takers, nobody suffers - the people who take the offer do so because it reached a level where they preferred the compensation over a punctual arrival, and anyone with very strong reasons for wanting to fly right now gets to do so.

Arbitrarily bumping passengers gets an overall sub-optimal outcome for everyone. It is both stupid and unnecessarily cruel, whether it is lawful or not.

Occasionally they don't have a choice. I do agree that it should be very rare, though. I think the fundamental problem is that the mandated compensation for kicking someone is too low. It needs to be set high enough that the airlines care more about not paying the compensation than about on-time departure.

 

[bilby]

Except only if those policies had been approved prior to the options and they weren't. Union rules and FAA rules would have stopped them from sending the crew that way. The other option would have been to bus the entire plane of passengers over. A company will have established procedures and these were the ones that worked for the airlines for a long time so they wouldn't adjust them on the fly because the worst situation had a very small chance of happening.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

And they could have just canceled the flight and so TS to all passengers.

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group. If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

The root of your inability to comprehend here is your bizarre idea that corporate policy is like a law of nature, and can neither be changed, nor its poor results blamed on the corporation that set it.

If UA staff are prohibited from doing the morally right thing by UA corporate policy, then that is a failing of UA for which they can and should be blamed and held to account.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue was that that a flight crew was needed ...

Wanted, not needed. Also, the method of renegotiating was wanted not needed. They could taken a helicopter. Finally the arbitrary limit on exchanged price of seat was wanted not needed. They did not need to use threat of violence to enforce their desires.

We've been through this before. Pulling suggestions out of your ass doesn't make them viable.

There's no point in sending the crew by helicopter, they wouldn't be legal to fly the plane at that point.

- - - Updated - - -

Also it is worth repeating that any other means of getting their crew there would have been cheaper than the means they went with ultimately ended up being. So even from the perspective of good business dealings the choice they made was STILL wrong.

Yeah, cheaper--as in $0. Doing nothing doens't mean spending any money. It also doesn't get them there. The only suggestions of alternate solutions came from people who had no idea of what was going on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That would be a class action lawsuit and if they brought police to beat people, criminal and civil charges. Do you really want to keep defending the existing power structure even when it's unfair and abusive?

The problem is you have fallen into the liberal trap of thinking there always is a good answer if you look hard enough--and it's corollary that a bad situation is always the result of someone in power not doing their job adequately.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't have been a class action lawsuit, they can cancel flights. Just would have had to give them all the refunds with the 5X their one way price. However that wouldn't have been their normal procedure either. The only normal procedure that United would have done is with the commotion, the pilot should have come out and settled it. But as I understand, it wasn't an United crew who did normally act more authoritatively, but rather a Republic crew who were more timid.

If there is fault, it lied with the security group. If it wasn't their power to arrest they needed to tell United that and have them call Chicago PD.

No 4x, that only applies to denied boarding, not cancelled flights.