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

[bilby]

The ideal answer--raising the compensation--was almost certainly not possible in the time they had available.

Wha?!?

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

 

[RVonse]

Until you are able to grasp that there can be a difference between the statements "It is required by the established rules, regulations and laws" and "It is the right thing to do", you will never be able to qualify as a fully adult human being.

The problem is that your side is outraged about what happened and refuses to see the bigger picture.

You want him left on the plane--without a thought for the hundreds of people who are going to be left behind because the crew didn't get there.

Now, the best answer is to increase the compensation offered but that assumes there's somebody on scene empowered to offer more--and that's unlikely. The norm is they don't offer more than the IDB rules mandate.

A typical leftist answer--unable to make hard choices so you "choose" the path of inaction that results in greater harm.

You said it right there Loren. Its the rules stupid. The rules that nobody in the media or nobody on this board after 30 pages has talked about. I believe it is the rules that were ultimately the cause and effect of this whole opera and drama.

Lets be honest now, the rules are just plain stupid. And no doubt the airlines lobby got the rules became the rules. We have let the corporations rule us and become so powerful that they now make stupid rules that actually do themselves harm (as in this case) as well.

Who the hell except for a greedy CEO needs to set a limit compensation offered!? This is America. Let the market decide! Everyone with any ounce of sense knows that that was what should have happened. Its past time to get rid of citizens united and let the corporations be corporations again instead of our Gods.

Our Supreme Court needs to realize that you can not allow an entity to have limited liability AND treat them like a citizen and not expect anything except chaos.

Chaos is exactly what United got. And I blame the rules that the airlines set for themselves.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The ideal answer--raising the compensation--was almost certainly not possible in the time they had available.

Wha?!?

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

The DOT has rules regarding what needs to be done to start the process of involuntary boarding. Does it require that they offer up to $1350?

 

[bilby]

Wha?!?

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

The DOT has rules regarding what needs to be done to start the process of involuntary boarding. Does it require that they offer up to $1350?

Who gives a shit? The question has fuck all to do with what I asked Loren; why did you make it a reply to my question?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The DOT has rules regarding what needs to be done to start the process of involuntary boarding. Does it require that they offer up to $1350?

Who gives a shit? The question has fuck all to do with what I asked Loren; why did you make it a reply to my question?

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

 

[bilby]

Who gives a shit? The question has fuck all to do with what I asked Loren; why did you make it a reply to my question?

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

What does that have to do with how long it takes to increase the compensation being offered?

Are you saying that it's unacceptable for a junior employee to have the authority to offer an extra few thousand dollars, but that the same employee who can't be trusted with decisions about a few grand, CAN be trusted with the authority to decide to initiate the use of force against a blameless passenger?

What kind of fucked up priorites are those?

And who's fault is it that these fucked up policies are in place?

Not the passenger's, that's for sure.

 

[Jaecp]

Who gives a shit? The question has fuck all to do with what I asked Loren; why did you make it a reply to my question?

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

Well, actually.... it does.

If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally) ... the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

So, first of all, this is the law, right? That is the amount the company is required, by law, to offer. It is the minimum that a company is required to offer.

Also....

DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers. DOT does, however, require airlines to advise any volunteer whether he or she might be involuntarily bumped and, if that were to occur, the amount of compensation that would be due.

Oh hey.... That includes

DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash

But this wasn't an oversold flight. This was United trying to fix their fuckup and they pretty clearly violated the law by not going higher than 800.

 

[Jaecp]

The problem is that your side is complacent about what happened and refuses to see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is keeping costs down = lower prices = higher standard of living for all. Why shouldn't a higher standard of living be important?

Lower costs are passed on to consumers only to the extent that they keep a competitor from taking those customers. Airlines don't overbook out of altruism, they do it to make a buck, and I don't accept that it actually lowers prices without an argument. Your rhetorical question is irrelevant.

But not only him -- what about the other 3 who did comply and got off? They did so under coercion, not by free choice, so you must want them also left on the plane -- right? Isn't it just as wrong to threaten force as it is to use it when the threatened one refuses to comply?

False. The other 3 accepted the compensation. They were not coerced. Likewise false. The threat of force is not equal to the execution of the threat. This is obvious. If the threat was the worst part, it wouldn't be the threat.

But not knowing what that is, because we're not omniscient, we have to leave that to those who directly perform the service, based on the best they can decide within the limited time frame.

Quite correct! Unfortunately...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI

What is the percentage of airline passengers who have violence done to them? Maybe one in a couple billion? It's a pretty small fraction. So the companies are doing a pretty good job of not doing violence to passengers. Maybe a grade of A-.

If only that was how PR worked

Of course this also means increasing the compensation to the 3 who complied and got off. They chose to exit the plane under the terms of the lower compensation. You can't change the terms when someone refuses to comply after others already complied. The whole compensation question is being worked out -- but they had a decision to make at that time. They couldn't hold that plane there for 3 or 4 weeks (months) to allow time for the compensation policies & procedures to be settled.

False. Just, everything in this paragraph is ridiculous.

The citizen in question is not totally "innocent" if he disobeys a lawful order from a security officer or law enforcement official.

Truly all are guilty and fall short of the glory of god... what? This is ridiculous.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

Well, actually.... it does.

If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally) ... the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

So, first of all, this is the law, right? That is the amount the company is required, by law, to offer. It is the minimum that a company is required to offer.

Also....

DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers. DOT does, however, require airlines to advise any volunteer whether he or she might be involuntarily bumped and, if that were to occur, the amount of compensation that would be due.

Oh hey.... That includes

DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash

But this wasn't an oversold flight. This was United trying to fix their fuckup and they pretty clearly violated the law by not going higher than 800.

Your link says they do not mandate what amount of compensation when asking for volunteer bumps. They can offer $1 or they can offer $1billion, it doesn't matter. There is no rule that says when asking for a volunteer to give up their seat that they must offer $1350 over the link. I also looked at the prices for flights for one way from Ohare to Louisville and the flights were about $220 for one way. Based on the 400% rule $880 is what they would have to pay to get the passenger there the next day.

 

[RavenSky]

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

I believe the airline did offer something like US$800.00 or $1,000.00 to the passengers on board:

Should of raised the offer quickly and used diplomacy. There are bound to be some who would accept more than US$1,000.00 and more

Also:
I've never heard of airlines offering incentives AFTER the person has boarded. These are usually done at the check in. I did have one connection cancelled by the originator when flying from Beijing via Paris to Caracas.

Actually the French lady was there at the entrance to the aircraft. She wouldn't let one passenger on because he didn't have his ticket along with the boarding. In the end she snatched his boarding pass to replace my cancelled one. (Nowadays the ticket is not required for boarding.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

I believe the airline did offer something like US$800.00 or $1,000.00 to the passengers on board:

Should of raised the offer quickly and used diplomacy. There are bound to be some who would accept more than US$1,000.00 and more

Also:
I've never heard of airlines offering incentives AFTER the person has boarded. These are usually done at the check in. I did have one connection cancelled by the originator when flying from Beijing via Paris to Caracas.

Actually the French lady was there at the entrance to the aircraft. She wouldn't let one passenger on because he didn't have his ticket along with the boarding. In the end she snatched his boarding pass to replace my cancelled one. (Nowadays the ticket is not required for boarding.

Just want to make sure...the airlines screwed up 40,000 times in 2016 when they had to involuntarily bump passengers? Is 0 the only number that's acceptable?

- - - Updated - - -

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

They did try, but not as high as you wanted them to go. And then the followed normal procedure of selecting 4 names of people who couldn't have to be involuntarily bumped. So what is United preferred method of violence? Mr Glock (gun), Mr Rawlins (baseball bat), or Mr Foreman (fists)?

 

[laughing dog]

Who gives a shit? The question has fuck all to do with what I asked Loren; why did you make it a reply to my question?

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

As usual, your response misses the point. The notion of a set amount that guarantees an acceptance is moot. The fact is that the apparent "normal procedure" was to offer up to $800 and then resort to force.
This time. that "normal procedure" did not work. And it ended up costing UA lots more than if they had an actual "normal procedure" in place that would have allowed an orderly and voluntary solution to their screw up.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because they were following the normal procedures they follow and that the DOT allows for a normal involuntary bump. The rules doesn't require that the airline offer $1350 to involunatarily bump someone. Considering this damage they should have offered a million dollars. And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

As usual, your response misses the point. The notion of a set amount that guarantees an acceptance is moot. The fact is that the apparent "normal procedure" was to offer up to $800 and then resort to force.
This time. that "normal procedure" did not work. And it ended up costing UA lots more than if they had an actual "normal procedure" in place that would have allowed an orderly and voluntary solution to their screw up.

No it's not. There is no set amount of money that is required by the Department of Transportation that is required for an airlines to involuntarily deny boarding to someone. they just have to offer something first (oculd be a $1, could be $1 million) but after that the airline can deny boarding to someone. That have to provide a written statement why and then offer compensation afterward. When there is a dispute about property, as there was in this case since he was on a United plane and they asked him to leave, it would be up to the police force to come in and investigate and make an initial ruling. The biggest lawsuit this guy has is that the security firm here did not have that authority and that needed to turn it over to real police to enforce the trespassing.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, your response misses the point. The notion of a set amount that guarantees an acceptance is moot. The fact is that the apparent "normal procedure" was to offer up to $800 and then resort to force.
This time. that "normal procedure" did not work. And it ended up costing UA lots more than if they had an actual "normal procedure" in place that would have allowed an orderly and voluntary solution to their screw up.

No it's not. There is no set amount of money that is required by the Department of Transportation that is required for an airlines to involuntarily deny boarding to someone. they just have to offer something first (oculd be a $1, could be $1 million) but after that the airline can deny boarding to someone. That have to provide a written statement why and then offer compensation afterward. When there is a dispute about property, as there was in this case since he was on a United plane and they asked him to leave, it would be up to the police force to come in and investigate and make an initial ruling. The biggest lawsuit this guy has is that the security firm here did not have that authority and that needed to turn it over to real police to enforce the trespassing.

Three observations. First, almost every one of your claims of fact about the law here has been shown to be wrong. Second, this man had boarded, so your entire argument is moot. Third, and most importantly, as usual, your response misses the point.

UA is losing the PR battle. Apparently they have lost some business. This is costing them more than if they had simply offered enough to get people to voluntarily leave the plane. And it will continue to cost them as long as they plays out.

 

[RavenSky]

Just want to make sure...the airlines screwed up 40,000 times in 2016 when they had to involuntarily bump passengers? Is 0 the only number that's acceptable?

This strawman is beyond idiotic even for you.

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

They did try, but not as high as you wanted them to go.

Wrong. It has zero to do with my opinions or wishes. They did not go as high as they could have; instead resorting to violence.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No it's not. There is no set amount of money that is required by the Department of Transportation that is required for an airlines to involuntarily deny boarding to someone. they just have to offer something first (oculd be a $1, could be $1 million) but after that the airline can deny boarding to someone. That have to provide a written statement why and then offer compensation afterward. When there is a dispute about property, as there was in this case since he was on a United plane and they asked him to leave, it would be up to the police force to come in and investigate and make an initial ruling. The biggest lawsuit this guy has is that the security firm here did not have that authority and that needed to turn it over to real police to enforce the trespassing.

Three observations. First, almost every one of your claims of fact about the law here has been shown to be wrong. Second, this man had boarded, so your entire argument is moot. Third, and most importantly, as usual, your response misses the point.

UA is losing the PR battle. Apparently they have lost some business. This is costing them more than if they had simply offered enough to get people to voluntarily leave the plane. And it will continue to cost them as long as they plays out.

You mean like how certain you were about Zimmerman being found guilty? You can be right and lose the PR battle. The old Mantra is don't hurt children or old people, we're more sensitive to it. United wins very little if they go all the way. Even getting the Dr to apologize on national TV for his wrong behavior wouldn't help enough.

- - - Updated - - -

This strawman is beyond idiotic even for you.

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

They did try, but not as high as you wanted them to go.

Wrong. It has zero to do with my opinions or wishes. They did not go as high as they could have; instead resorting to violence.

They did resort to violence, they didn't go find Mr Rawlins and break knee caps until someone complied. They went to the authorities whose job is to determine disagreements between parties.

- - - Updated - - -

This strawman is beyond idiotic even for you.

And $1350 wasn't enough to guarantee that four people would have chosen it.

You are correct - there is no guarantee that someone on that flight would have accepted something between $800 and $1350 for voluntarily giving up their seat.

The fact that they didn't even try and instead went straight to violence against a random paying passenger is part of the problem.

They did try, but not as high as you wanted them to go.

Wrong. It has zero to do with my opinions or wishes. They did not go as high as they could have; instead resorting to violence.

But you are saying they didn't go high enough, $800 wasn't enough and they had a duty to go higher. They don't have a duty to go higher, there is no law that says they do. So for the 40,000 involuntary bumps last year did they offer $1350 or more in every case?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for 5--it's not my job to pull a solution out of my ass.

In this thread it is your job to defend your position, which is (in part) that the flight in question was the only one that would get the crew to their destination in time to make the flight which they were supposed to crew.

In order for you to properly defend that position, it is upon you to provide the information as to which flight that was and what time it was scheduled to depart Louisville. You haven't done this.

It's your side that insists there's a better solution. The burden is on you to provide it, not fall back on the liberal Bible saying that there's always a good solution if you look hard enough.

I have seen nothing on when the flight departs Louisville. I showed that taking the second United flight didn't make them available until what was probably too late for the first flight of the day. Replacement crew would be for the first flight of the day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to misunderstand the difference between fighting in court and fighting the cop. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that your opinion of what is or is not acceptable is the last word on the matter.

It's no less acceptable to fight back against a cop who illegally assaults you than it is to fight back against anyone else.

Cops should be held to a higher standard than civilians; your belief that the reverse is true marks you down as both an authoritarian and an idiot.

Nobody has shown that the cop's actions were illegal.

Airline doesn't want you there, tells you to leave. If you stay anyway you're trespassing--and it's perfectly legal for the cops to use force to evict a trespasser. The only question here is whether the airline is civilly liable for anything beyond an ordinary involuntary denied boarding.

- - - Updated - - -

The ideal answer--raising the compensation--was almost certainly not possible in the time they had available.

Wha?!?

How long do you imagine it takes to offer higher compensation?

It does take slightly longer to say 'Eight hundred and fifty dollars' than it takes to say 'Eight hundred dollars'; but that doesn't hold true for some higher values, such as 'One thousand dollars'; and the fractions of a second required for the longer numbers surely isn't going to be enough to cause the aircraft to miss its takeoff slot.

This assertion is one of the least supportable claims I have ever seen from you. And that's a real achievement; congratulations.

You think the low level people are authorized to offer more? And this was after normal business hours, the sort of people that could authorize it were probably no longer at work to be able to do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said it right there Loren. Its the rules stupid. The rules that nobody in the media or nobody on this board after 30 pages has talked about. I believe it is the rules that were ultimately the cause and effect of this whole opera and drama.

Lets be honest now, the rules are just plain stupid. And no doubt the airlines lobby got the rules became the rules. We have let the corporations rule us and become so powerful that they now make stupid rules that actually do themselves harm (as in this case) as well.

Who the hell except for a greedy CEO needs to set a limit compensation offered!? This is America. Let the market decide! Everyone with any ounce of sense knows that that was what should have happened. Its past time to get rid of citizens united and let the corporations be corporations again instead of our Gods.

Our Supreme Court needs to realize that you can not allow an entity to have limited liability AND treat them like a citizen and not expect anything except chaos.

Chaos is exactly what United got. And I blame the rules that the airlines set for themselves.

If the rules didn't exist they would be free to simply say "get off", no compensation. Watch what happens with rental cars. "We're sorry, the car you reserved hasn't been returned yet. We don't have a car for you." Compensation, $0, at least it was only a planned trip, not landing in a city and being told no cars.