# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  IL-Man gets dragged off and bloodied for refusing to give up seat on United flight

## Anti Federalist

Just prison with wings.

If I had to venture a guess, he caught a beating from the cops (rent a cops?) before being returned.

*Do Not Fly* if you can avoid it all...it is a humiliating, creepy, lousy experience.


*Video shows man forcibly removed from United flight from Chicago to Louisville*

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...lle/100274374/

Lucas Aulbach , The Courier-Journal Published 12:17 a.m. ET April 10, 2017

A video posted on Facebook late Sunday evening shows a passenger on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Louisville being forcibly removed from the plane before takeoff at OHare International Airport.

The video, posted by Audra D. Bridges at 7:30 p.m. Sunday, is taken from an aisle seat on a commercial airplane that appears to be preparing to take flight. The 31-second clip shows three men wearing radio equipment and security jackets speaking with a man seated on the plane. After a few seconds, one of the men grabs the passenger, who screams, and drags him by his arms toward the front of the plane. The video ends before anything else is shown.

A United spokesperson confirmed in an email Sunday night that a passenger had been taken off a flight in Chicago.

"Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked," the spokesperson said. "After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate.

"We apologize for the overbook situation. Further details on the removed customer should be directed to authorities."

Bridges, a Louisville resident, gave her account of the flight Sunday night.

Passengers were told at the gate that the flight was overbooked and United, offering $400 and a hotel stay, was looking for one volunteer to take another flight to Louisville at 3 p.m. Monday. Passengers were allowed to board the flight, Bridges said, and once the flight was filled those on the plane were told that four people needed to give up their seats to stand-by United employees that needed to be in Louisville on Monday for a flight. Passengers were told that the flight would not take off until the United crew had seats, Bridges said, and the offer was increased to $800, but no one volunteered.

Then, she said, a manager came aboard the plane and said a computer would select four people to be taken off the flight. One couple was selected first and left the airplane, she said, before the man in the video was confronted.

Bridges said the man became "very upset" and said that he was a doctor who needed to see patients at a hospital in the morning. The manager told him that security would be called if he did not leave willingly, Bridges said, and the man said he was calling his lawyer. One security official came and spoke with him, and then another security officer came when he still refused. Then, she said, a third security official came on the plane and threw the passenger against the armrest before dragging him out of the plane.

*The man was able to get back on the plane after initially being taken off  his face was bloody and he seemed disoriented, Bridges said, and he ran to the back of the plane. Passengers asked to get off the plane as a medical crew came on to deal with the passenger, she said, and passengers were then told to go back to the gate so that officials could "tidy up" the plane before taking off.*

Bridges said the man shown in the video was the only person who was forcibly removed.

"Everyone was shocked and appalled," Bridges said. "There were several children on the flight as well that were very upset."

The flight was delayed around two hours before it could fly to Louisville, and it arrived in Kentucky later Sunday night. No update was given to the passengers about the condition of the man forcibly removed, Bridges said.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just prison with wings.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess, he caught a beating from the cops (rent a cops?) before being returned.
> 
> *Do Not Fly* if you can avoid it all...it is a humiliating, creepy, lousy experience.
> 
> 
> *Video shows man forcibly removed from United flight from Chicago to Louisville*
> 
> ...


So much for "Fly the Friendly Skies."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So much for "Fly the Friendly Skies."


Pffft...I flew the old Continental for years and then United when they merged, have been using JetBlue some here recently, but for US travel, it's all the same, flying is like dealing with cops or the IRS.

Sit Down, Shut Up, Say Nothing, Do Nothing and get it over with as quickly as possible.

You know, like what they used to tell women getting raped years ago...

Only on a few high end foreign fleets is the experience better.

----------


## asurfaholic

Holy hell thats insane. If I was that doctor I'd be planning my early retirement.

----------


## opal

whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count

----------


## RJB

> whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count


They will probably get promoted.

----------


## asurfaholic

> whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count


They overbook by design. Usually a no show or 2 means there are no issues.

----------


## sparebulb

The rent a cops obviously gave this guy a tune-up out in the jetway where no one could see.

He was wise to have slipped free and gone back to the airplane where witnesses could see his injuries.

The bad part is that the airline will cover their ass by making the complaint that he didn't comply with crewmember instructions.....

.........a  felony.

His only salvation might be that he may have never been instructed to simon-says "get up" by a flight attendant or pilot.

But he will certainly be charged with trespassing and assault for whatever the goon squad claim what happened out of view.

This whole thing was absolutely unnecessary.

Unless things have changed since my old days, there is a well-known order to determine who comes off of an airplane in an overbooked situation.

The order is very common sense.  First the free riders, then the reduced-fare employee/family pass travelers.  That usually takes care of the problem, but if it doesn't, they try to bully the last checked in positive-space fare  passenger to get off.  If they protest, the agents know that it looks bad and the airline reputation takes a hit, so they back off and go to the tried and true method of offering cash to get off and take a later flight.  They start out small, and it is not worth it to most people to take a later flight for $50 or a free round trip for a future flight.  It is definitely not worth spending the night in a crap hotel in the event that this is the last flight of the night.  So the price goes up until someone bites.  Evidently, new policy must cap the offer to $800.  That means nothing to the full-fare business traveler like this man, who evidently is a physician.  Back in the old days, I've seen agents offer up to a couple of thousand dollars to get off, because everyone has a price, and the free market solves these things the best.

The thing that I find the most curious is why they needed his seat.  They obviously needed his seat to give to someone else, unless the unlikely case that the aircraft was weight limited and they needed to remove bodies.  This is highly unlikely in this type of equipment on that length of a flight.  He was obviously a full-fare positive-space passenger because they were looking for volunteers.

If "murikans were smarter, this would be the kiss of death for an airline's reputation.  However, Boobus knows how important it is for the airline and the enforcers to keep everything in order.

In a just world, United and the cops would pay a multi-million dollar judgement to this man.

But he will probably be lucky to fend off a prison sentence and keep his professional license.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The thing that I find the most curious is why they needed his seat.  They obviously needed his seat to give to someone else, unless the unlikely case that the aircraft was weight limited and they needed to remove bodies.  This is highly unlikely in this type of equipment on that length of a flight.  He was obviously a full-fare positive-space passenger because they were looking for volunteers.


Dead heading crew:




> once the flight was filled those on the plane were told that four people needed to give up their seats to stand-by United employees that needed to be in Louisville on Monday for a flight

----------


## Anti Federalist

> whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count


Surf's right...the airlines overbook as a matter of policy, they always assume a 1-2 percent "no show" of booked passengers.

----------


## SeanTX

> If "murikans were smarter, this would be the kiss of death for an airline's reputation.  However, Boobus knows how important it is for the airline and the enforcers to keep everything in order.


On other forums I've mostly seen the Boobuses cheering on the enforcers -- i.e., he did this to himself, by failing to comply ("if the cops have to remove you from a plane, an ass whoopin' is comin' along with that!") ....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> On other forums I've mostly seen the Boobuses cheering on the enforcers -- i.e., he did this to himself, by failing to comply ("if the cops have to remove you from a plane, an ass whoopin' is comin' along with that!") ....


Of course they are.

AmeriKunts love them a good cop ass whoopin.

----------


## sparebulb

> Dead heading crew:


The two versions I read did not have that tidbit.

I worked for a former "major" airline that would have never let it go this far.

Our company owned a jet charter company, and would have made the choice of sending the Lear to pick up the crew or find another crew from somewhere else.  No brainer vs kicking off full fare business travelers.

Upping the $$$ to find a volunteer is still the best policy even if it goes up to several thousand dollars.

But as you pointed out, the airlines now have an imperious attitude toward their customers subjects.  They are emboldened with the federal codes and muscle behind their arbitrary authority.

----------


## phill4paul

> The thing that I find the most curious is why they needed his seat.  They obviously needed his seat to give to someone else, unless the unlikely case that the aircraft was weight limited and they needed to remove bodies.  This is highly unlikely in this type of equipment on that length of a flight.  He was obviously a full-fare positive-space passenger because they were looking for volunteers.


  Because United EMPLOYEES needed the seats.




> once the flight was filled those on the plane were told that *four people needed to give up their seats to stand-by United employees* that needed to be in Louisville on Monday for a flight


  I hope he sues the $#@! out of them.

  Edit: NVM, covered by AF.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The two versions I read did not have that tidbit.


Pulled it right from my OP 




> I worked for a former "major" airline that would have never let it go this far.
> 
> Our company owned a jet charter company, and would have made the choice of sending the Lear to pick up the crew or find another crew from somewhere else.  No brainer vs kicking off full fare business travelers.
> 
> Upping the $$$ to find a volunteer is still the best policy even if it goes up to several thousand dollars.
> 
> *But as you pointed out, the airlines now have an imperious attitude toward their customers subjects.  They are emboldened with the federal codes and muscle behind their arbitrary authority*.


Yeah, there is no "customer service" anymore, let alone "the customer is always right".

You are barely tolerated cattle, to be shuffled around as quickly as possible to maximize every flight mile.

This was very noticeable before and after 9/11.

Complain or bitch about service or quality of the product, as is your right as a paying customer, or bitch about the sordid abuse at the hands of the government gate rapists, as is your right as a free man, and you'll get cops sicced on you in a heartbeat, who we all know, in any situation, are more than happy to administer a good beating to let you know just who the $#@!ing boss is on this heah plantation.

Avoid flying at all costs.

----------


## liveandletlive

1. vouchers are useless, give the guy cash. $1,000 is fair for the inconvenience. 

2. Selecting people randomly to give them the heave-ho does not make them "volunteers". 

3. Sending in goons to rough someone up is something the mafia would do, not an Airline.

4. United is lucky he wasn't black.

----------


## CaptUSA

"Close your eyes and think of America"

----------


## sparebulb

> 1. vouchers are useless, give the guy cash. $1,000 is fair for the inconvenience. 
> 
> 2. Selecting people randomly to give them the heave-ho does not make them "volunteers". 
> 
> 3. Sending in goons to rough someone up is something the mafia would do, not an Airline.
> 
> 4. *United is lucky he wasn't black*.


Thread winner!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> On other forums I've mostly seen the Boobuses cheering on the enforcers --...



I can't stand those petty people.  Some need the holy f*ck beat out of them.

----------


## oyarde

Is the 800 cash or voucher ? If I needed to see patients and was a witch Dr I may take it in cash and rent a car and drive the 7 hours as soon as possible and call ahead about when I might arrive. If it was a voucher and a hotel that is a serious ripoff because a medical professional is probably only going to take one vacation per yr . He is going to sue these stupid bastards now .

----------


## oyarde

AF is right , only US flights are like this , the rest are better . america is just not going to be Great.

----------


## oyarde

In case anyone is curious , Chicago was never , ever Great.

----------


## juleswin

> Holy hell thats insane. If I was that doctor I'd be planning my early retirement.


Not so fast. These sort of rules are written in the long agreements contracts you signed when you buy your tickets. I used to get discounted tickets from a friend who retired from Delta and one time I was asked to come out after taking my seat. Normally, I get notified about the overbooking before I took my seat.

----------


## sparebulb

New info.....

This was a United codeshare flight with Republic Airlines.

United sucks, like all airlines, but the codeshare airlines are even a lower form of suck.

Of note:  Republic Airlines is either in bankruptcy or freshly emerged from bankruptcy.

----------


## timosman

Why didn't they up the offer to something like $10,000? Would be cheaper than a lawsuit.

----------


## sparebulb

> *United is lucky he wasn't black.*


More news.....

From this article:

_“He says, ‘Nope. I’m not getting off the flight. I’m a doctor and have to see patients tomorrow morning,’” Bridges said.

The man became angry as the manager persisted, Bridges said, eventually yelling. “He said, more or less, ‘I’m being selected because I’m Chinese.’”_


washingtonpost.com
A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight. So he was dragged off, battered and limp.
By Avi Selk

United Airlines said a man wouldn't give up his spot on an overbooked flight. According to witnesses, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security and back to the terminal at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. (Tyler Bridges)

United Airlines said a man wouldn’t give up his spot on an overbooked flight. According to witnesses, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security and back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. United Airlines said a man wouldn’t give up his spot on an overbooked flight. According to witnesses, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security and back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. (Tyler Bridges)

United Airlines says a man wouldn’t give up his spot on an overbooked flight Sunday.

So, according to witnesses and videos of the incident, he was pulled screaming from his seat by security, knocked against an arm rest and dragged down the aisle and back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

United refused to answer questions about the incident, which horrified other passengers on the Louisville-bound flight. An airline spokesman only apologized for the overbooked flight, and said police were called after a passenger “refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily.”

What happened was captured on cellphone video by at least two passengers.

Tyler Bridges recalled trouble starting almost as soon as he and his wife boarded.

An airline supervisor walked onto the plane and brusquely announced: “We have United employees that need to fly to Louisville tonight. … This flight’s not leaving until four people get off.”

“That rubbed some people the wrong way,” Bridges said.

Passengers were offered vouchers to rebook, he said, but no one volunteered.

So the airline chose for them.

A young couple was told to leave first, Bridges recalled. “They begrudgingly got up and left,” he said.

Then an older man, who refused.

“He says, ‘Nope. I’m not getting off the flight. I’m a doctor and have to see patients tomorrow morning,’” Bridges said.

The man became angry as the manager persisted, Bridges said, eventually yelling. “He said, more or less, ‘I’m being selected because I’m Chinese.’”

A police officer boarded. Then a second and a third.

Bridges then began recording, as did another passenger — as the officers leaned over the man, a lone holdout in his window seat.

“Can’t they rent a car for the pilots?” another passenger asks in the videos.

Then the man, out of frame, screams.

One of the officers quickly reaches across two empty seats, snatches the man and pulls him into the aisle.

“My God!” someone yells — not for the first time.

He goes limp after hitting the floor.

“It looked like it knocked him out,” Bridges said. “His nose was bloody.”

His glasses nearly knocked off his face, the man clutches his cellphone as one of the officers pulls him by both arms down the aisle and off the plane.

“This is horrible,” someone says.

“What are you doing? No! This is wrong.”

*And with that, Bridges said, four United employees boarded and took the empty seats.


They were not popular among the passengers, he recalled.

“People were saying you should be ashamed to work for this company,” Bridges said.
*
And it wasn’t over.

In another video, the man runs back onto the plane, his clothes still mussed from his forcible ejection, frantically repeating: “I have to go home. I have to go home.”

“He was kind of dazed and confused,” Bridges said. He recalled a group of high school students leaving the plane in disgust at that point, their adult escort explaining to other passengers: “They don’t need to see this anymore.”

The airline eventually cleared everyone from the plane, Bridges said, and did not let them back on until the man was removed a second time — in a stretcher.

In the end, Bridges and his wife got to Louisville about three hours late.

“It was a pretty tense flight,” he said.


United Chief Oscar Munoz later tweeted that everyone at the airline was upset about the incident.

Munoz, by the way, is slated to be honored as tonight as “Communicator of the Year” by PRWeek.

----------


## SeanTX

Looking on the United Airlines Facebook page I now see many angry comments, but all are directed at the airline. The airline didn't force the police to commit assault and battery on the passenger. 

It's something that was really a civil / contract law matter, and the police should have refused to take part in it (of course, they're never going to turn down the opportunity to escalate something).

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Looking on the United Airlines Facebook page I now see many angry comments, but all are directed at the airline. The airline didn't force the police to commit assault and battery on the passenger. 
> 
> It's something that was really a civil / contract law matter, and the police should have refused to take part in it.


Can anybody confirm that they were in fact cops, and not rent a cops?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

New Ad Campaign

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Can anybody confirm that they were in fact cops, and not rent a cops?





> The Chicago Department of Aviation, meanwhile, says the actions of the  security officers was "not condoned by the Department," and that one  individual has been placed on leave pending a review.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ompting-outcry

----------


## Schifference

What if you owned a body shop and had cars to paint the next day? Is your time or customers less important? Him being a doctor is of little significance to me. The airline should have used diplomacy instead of force.

----------


## oyarde

Wait a minute , if this guy is chinese how did they let him into Louisville in the first place ? What does the @texan have to say on this ?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii



----------


## osan

> whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count


Overbooking is standard procedure.  All airlines do it.

----------


## timosman

> Overbooking is standard procedure.  All airlines do it.


That's actually the real problem - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nd-Overbooking
They should not be doing it.

----------


## dannno

> What if you owned a body shop and had cars to paint the next day? Is your time or customers less important? Him being a doctor is of little significance to me.


Did you really just say that?

Painting cars is more important than a potentially life saving procedure?

----------


## dannno

> They should not be doing it.


What are you going to do about it?

----------


## TheTexan

Wouldnt happen to me.

I have status.

----------


## timosman

> What are you going to do about it?


I am talking about it. Maybe Danke will have better ideas if he decides to show up.

----------


## timosman

> Wouldnt happen to me.
> 
> I have status.


Is your status something a robocop would acknowledge?

----------


## TheTexan

> Is your status something a robocop would acknowledge?


I'm sure they would back off after I calmly explain the situation.  Officers are very rational and understanding.

----------


## timosman

> I'm sure they would back off after I calmly explain the situation.  Officers are very rational and understanding.


They also have orders to follow.

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

> whomever over booked the plane should be fired on the grounds that  he/she  can't  count


who needs to be able to count or do anything halfway decently if they have the gestapo at their beck and call ?

----------


## FSP-Rebel



----------


## phill4paul

> I would appreciate a warning next time you post something like this. I almost killed myself laughing.


  Life insurance won't cash out for you if done that way. You should re-read the contract and think of the children.

----------


## timosman

> Life insurance won't cash out for you if done that way. You should re-read the contract and think of the children.


I just checked. It would cash out but not at the full rate. They still need to get back to me on what the actual rate would be. I hope it is not 0%.

----------


## phill4paul

> I just checked. It would cash out but not at the full rate. They still need to get back to me on what the actual rate would be. I hope it is not 0%.


  Page 30,326. Provision MMMDCXXIV: Paragraph 3. Section 4. Addendum C1 (A).

  "$#@! you you're dead."

----------


## Brett85

United was wrong to do this in this situation because they weren't really "overbooked" at all, but rather decided to allow four of their employees to catch the flight.  They should've just had their employees catch a different flight instead.  However, if there actually were a hypothetical situation where a flight was overbooked, and United offered the passengers money if they chose to leave the flight, and none of the passengers accepted the offer, then they would have no choice but to force several people to leave the flight.  And yeah, I would be in favor of them raising the price until someone accepted the offer.  But, what if it got into the thousands of dollars and still no one accepted the offer?  I don't see what else they could do but to force several people to leave the flight in that situation.

----------


## phill4paul

> United was wrong to do this in this situation because they weren't really "overbooked" at all, but rather decided to allow four of their employees to catch the flight.  They should've just had their employees catch a different flight instead.  However, if there actually were a hypothetical situation where a flight was overbooked, and United offered the passengers money if they chose to leave the flight, and none of the passengers accepted the offer, then they would have no choice but to force several people to leave the flight.  And yeah, I would be in favor of them raising the price until someone accepted the offer.  But, what if it got into the thousands of dollars and still no one accepted the offer?  I don't see what else they could do but to force several people to leave the flight in that situation.


  Plan better. Four employees needed to be at the destination. Would it have inconvenienced them to go a day early, or two, and be put up in a hotel room? 

  My personal take...

  If I had paid for a ticket and you tried to drag my ass out of it for one of your employees I'd have initiated the nuclear option.

  The video would have been much better fare for the public. They love bloodsports.

----------


## timosman

> Page 30,326. Provision MMMDCXXIV: Paragraph 3. Section 4. Addendum C1 (A).
> 
>   "$#@! you you're dead."


Is that enforceable?

----------


## phill4paul

> Is that enforceable?


  What does it matter to you? You're dead.

----------


## timosman

> What does it matter to you? You're dead.


There are beneficiaries.

----------


## phill4paul

> There are beneficiaries.


  Did you thoroughly read the "beneficiaries" clause? Did you look through the document while back-lit? Lemon laws are one thing. Lemon juice laws something quite different.

----------


## timosman

> Did you thoroughly read the "beneficiaries" clause? Did you look through the document while back-lit? Lemon laws are one thing. Lemon juice laws something quite different.


I do not buy from people who sell like that.

----------


## phill4paul

> I do not buy from people who sell like that.


 Well, you are covered. Congratulations. Are you worth more dead than alive?

----------


## timosman

> Well, you are covered. Congratulations. Are you worth more dead than alive?


I do not think so. I am not Michael Jackson or George Michael.

----------


## Origanalist

> New Ad Campaign

----------


## timosman

> 


He was great in Watchmen. A very appropriate scene of his death:

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## Origanalist



----------


## AZJoe

> Looking on the United Airlines Facebook page I now see many angry comments, but all are directed at the airline. The airline didn't force the police to commit assault and battery on the passenger. 
> It's something that was really a civil / contract law matter, and the police should have refused to take part in it (of course, they're never going to turn down the opportunity to escalate something).


It is the airline that resorted to calling goons to do to be their "muscle." United Airlines lies and says they "asked him to voluntarily" give up his seat. Well if they are asking and it is voluntary, then he has a right to say no doesn't he. It wasn't voluntary. They lied. They were trying to steal the seat they sold back by force. 

United Airlines is the ones who overbooked, and they should pay the consequences. 
They offered a voucher, but the passengers did not find that a fair price for giving up their seat. 
United Airlines wanted someone to give up a seat but they did not want to pay the market price to obtain that. They should have increased the offer until someone was willing to sell their seat back to the airline. They should have offer two or three vouchers - whatever the market price turns out to be. Eventually, someone would accept. If they want to overbook, fine, but they better be willing to pay the fair market price required to buy the necessary seats back.

Instead, United used force to steal back a seat they sold, instead of paying the fair market price for getting it back after they over booked.

----------


## Created4

United is not handling this so well:




> United Airlines' parent company CEO Oscar Munoz late Monday issued a letter defending his employees, saying the passenger was being "disruptive and belligerent."
> 
> While Munoz said he was "upset" to see and hear what happened, "our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this."


http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...wvideo/2319852

----------


## osan

> So the real question is: Is it possible to buy a ticket on an airplane? Or is it just a lottery ticket?


Does it matter?

You choose to buy.  Nobody forces you... at least not yet.  That, however, may come one day.  Crazy, you say?  Look at health "insurance".  More like a health tax.

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

I think it matters. . . if people are not actually being assured of a seat on a plane, I would imagine many people might not book it to begin with.

----------


## timosman

> Does it matter?
> 
> You choose to buy.  Nobody forces you... at least not yet.  That, however, may come one day.  Crazy, you say?  Look at health "insurance".  More like a health tax.


You are being disingenuous. The fact they are overbooking prevents anybody from traveling like a human being. The flights are packed to the gills with people which does not make anybody comfortable. Pretending the planes can fly people at 100% capacity is a sick joke.

----------


## specsaregood

> United is not handling this so well:
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...wvideo/2319852


Indeed, this says all I need to know about this copsucker.



> United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz said the passenger seen in a viral video who was dragged, bloodied off his companys plane on Sunday *had defied security officers* and had become disruptive and belligerent, even as some lawmakers called for an investigation into the incident.
> 
> Munoz issued a statement Monday to employees defending the airlines widely derided actions in forcibly removing a passenger from a Chicago flight bound for Louisville. The man who was taken off the plane has not been named, but he identified himself as a doctor during the debacle and another passenger said the man said he was of Chinese descent. The man was asked to leave in order to accommodate the seating of several United crew members.
> 
> This situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help, Munoz wrote.
> http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/0...stigation.html


I wont be flying united if I can reasonably find an alternative.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Indeed, this says all I need to know about this copsucker.
> 
> 
> *I wont be flying united if I can reasonably find an alternative.*


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Bugatti-Chiron

----------


## Jan2017

> 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zgbMIiPTS4

*FIGHT OR FLIGHT* 
*United Airlines passenger ripped from seat and dragged off overbooked flight 
revealed to be father-of-five-specialist doctor aged 69*
Passengers recorded the moment the elderly man is pulled out of his seat and along the floor by official
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/330548...tor-david-dao/


*United Airlines Chief blames "belligerent" passenger for violent removal*
"Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7677711.html


[PS - this is international news now, seems movable to mods?]

----------


## Created4

> I wont be flying united if I can reasonably find an alternative.


I won't be flying United even if I CAN'T find an alternative.

The power of the consumer in a semi-free market is one of the last choices we have to affect change in the market place.

----------


## timosman

The person who did the pulling is no longer employed. Or so I hope.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Plan better. Four employees needed to be at the destination. Would it have inconvenienced them to go a day early, or two, and be put up in a hotel room?


They were in a panic because the flight they were going to crew would now not have left on time or been canceled causing even more loss and headaches.

Thank Uncle Sucker for the ridiculous flight rest rules for that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Been flying Continental and then United for 20 years now, million mile flyer.

Have been in a high state of piss off over the merger for years now.

But this was the last straw, wrote a hate/ragequit mail to United and have switched to Jet Blue.

----------


## TheTexan

I hope the rent-a-Officer is OK

----------


## specsaregood

> They were in a panic because the flight they were going to crew would now not have left on time or been canceled causing even more loss and headaches.
> 
> Thank Uncle Sucker for the ridiculous flight rest rules for that.


I have a problem with how all the news articles are saying that the flight was oversold/overbooked.   From what i'm reading it was NOT oversold, or at least that was not the problem.  They didn't sell too many seats, they decided to *unsell* available seats in order to use them for employee transportation.   *This was a change of plans, not a matter of lack of seats for ticketed paying customers.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I have a problem with how all the news articles are saying that the flight was oversold/overbooked.   From what i'm reading it was NOT oversold, or at least that was not the problem.  They didn't sell too many seats, they decided to *unsell* available seats in order to use them for employee transportation.   *This was a change of plans, not a matter of lack of seats for ticketed paying customers.*


That is exactly right and it was bull$#@! on United's part.

Now, granted, they did not actually beat this man down, that was the $#@! cops.

But United was the one who called the $#@! cops into the situation, so they are ultimately, the guilty party here.

You call cops and what do *expect* is going to happen?

People are gonna get $#@!ed up and/or go to prison.

Or die.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## Jan2017

*BBC : Outrage has erupted on Chinese and Vietnamese social media over the removal of a passenger from an overbooked United Airlines flight.

*One eyewitness said he was a "Chinese American doctor", while another said he was originally from Vietnam.

A video taken by Audra Bridges, who was on board the flight from Chicago to Louisville, shows the visibly distressed man being hauled out of his seat. The video has been shared millions of times and photos of his bloodied face also spread quickly.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39562288

----------


## sparebulb

The settlement from Yonited just got a little cheaper.

From Drudge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-gay-sex.html

It doesn't change the facts of the case, but the sympathy for the victim will dry up a bit.  Everyone will think that this guy is a sleaze that won't follow reasonable commands.

This story is perfect for keeping everyone from worrying about the impending end of the world.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## specsaregood

> The settlement from Yonited just got a little cheaper.
> 
> From Drudge:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-gay-sex.html
> 
> It doesn't change the facts of the case, but the sympathy for the victim will dry up a bit.  Everyone will think that this guy is a sleaze that won't follow reasonable commands.
> 
> This story is perfect for keeping everyone from worrying about the impending end of the world.



Wow, smear the victim.  Guess that 800million drop in stock value hurt the CEO's stock options enough to go to the gutter.

----------


## Schifference

> Did you really just say that?
> 
> Painting cars is more important than a potentially life saving procedure?


Sure yes I said that and meant it.

I used to own a printing company. Oftentimes printed material is extremely time sensitive. For example a $25,000 project for a convention is worthless if it is not there for the convention. If you fail to deliver on time you not only lose all the production costs but an established customer as well. I don't think just because you do this job or that one you are entitled to any different treatment than any other person that bought the same type of ticket that you did.

----------


## Schifference

My interpretation of the media this morning was that they were predicting United stock to tumble. Since when is the news in the stock predicting business? Shouldn't they just report news if the stock drops rather than predict that it will?

----------


## timosman

> The settlement from Yonited just got a little cheaper.
> 
> From Drudge:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-gay-sex.html
> 
> It doesn't change the facts of the case, but the sympathy for the victim will dry up a bit.  Everyone will think that this guy is a sleaze that won't follow reasonable commands.
> 
> This story is perfect for keeping everyone from worrying about the impending end of the world.


Character assassination. Even if true not relevant.

----------


## Ender

> Character assassination. Even if true not relevant.


Exactly.

The man's past, which if true he already paid the price, has nothing to do with United's POS actions.

----------


## timosman

> Exactly.
> 
> The man's past, which if true he already paid the price, has nothing to do with United's POS actions.


Even if he didn't it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

----------


## Jan2017

>

----------


## Jan2017

Just heard - United Airlines is banning the video. (trying)

Save to disc ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zgbMIiPTS4

----------


## Schifference

Treat everyone the same

----------


## juleswin

Anyone complaining about the actions of the airline have a better idea of how they could have taking out the passenger after a fair random roll picked him to be removed from the plane?

----------


## specsaregood

> Anyone complaining about the actions of the airline have a better idea of how they could have taking out the passenger after a fair random roll picked him to be removed from the plane?


How about not removing a passenger that wasn't causing problems and was already sitting in the seat they purchased?  If the flight was oversold/overbooked he wouldn't' have had a seat to sit in.

----------


## dannno

> Anyone complaining about the actions of the airline have a better idea of how they could have taking out the passenger after a fair random roll picked him to be removed from the plane?


Me!

"Sir, we are going to have to ask you to get off the plane."

"I'm a doctor, I have patients to operate on tomorrow morning, I can't get off the plane."

"Can I see your medical license?"

"Yes, here it is."

"Ok, we will be selecting another random passenger."

----------


## juleswin

> How about not removing a passenger that wasn't causing problems and was already sitting in the seat they purchased?  If the flight was oversold/overbooked he wouldn't' have had a seat to sit in.


Let assume that they needed those workers in order to keep their planes safe and on time and not transporting those worker would inconvenience way more people than the initial 4. Also assume that everything they did was according to he books and according to the contract signed by the passengers. Then what would you do if the rolled passenger still decides not to follow the rules?

----------


## specsaregood

> Me!
> 
> "Sir, we are going to have to ask you to get off the plane."
> 
> "I'm a doctor, I have patients to operate on tomorrow morning, I can't get off the plane."
> 
> "Can I see your medical license?"
> 
> "Yes, here it is."
> ...


meh, doctors aren't more equal to anybody else.   I say if you are already IN a seat actually occupying it and not cause any problems, then you automatically get a pass.  I don't care if you are a toll collector.

----------


## juleswin

> Me!
> 
> "Sir, we are going to have to ask you to get off the plane."
> 
> "I'm a doctor, I have patients to operate on tomorrow morning, I can't get off the plane."
> 
> "Can I see your medical license?"
> 
> "Yes, here it is."
> ...


That is not how a fair random roll works. Are you telling me that if the plane had been delayed for any other reason, his patient would have died? sorry but just about everybody else thinks their lives and time is equally as important. He doesn't get a pass in this case cos he is a doctor

----------


## specsaregood

> Let assume that they needed those workers in order to keep their planes safe and on time and not transporting those worker would inconvenience way more people than the initial 4. Also assume that everything they did was according to he books and according to the contract signed by the passengers. Then what would you do if the rolled passenger still decides not to follow the rules?


Let's start making up random scenarios that do not apply to the situation in the OP...  Yes, if there was a macgyer type special forces guy that was being specially piloted in to dive out of the plane and hook up with another plane in the area, and disarm a bomb while fixing the navigation system with bubble gum and a paper clip you might have to make room for the MacGyver guy.   Course, if that was the situation you'd probably find a volunteer and wouldn't have to drag somebody off.   That is not what happened here.  They sold the ticket, then wanted a reneg on the situation.  They didn't oversell.     They could have worked something out.

----------


## juleswin

> Let's start making up random scenarios that do not apply to the situation in the OP...  Yes, if there was a macgyer type special forces guy that was being specially piloted in to dive out of the plane and hook up with another plane in the area, and disarm a bomb while fixing the navigation system with bubble gum and a paper clip you might have to make room for the MacGyver guy.   Course, if that was the situation you'd probably find a volunteer and wouldn't have to drag somebody off.   That is not what happened here.  They sold the ticket, then wanted a reneg on the situation.  They didn't oversell.     They could have worked something out.


My scenario is entirely plausible. I actually think that is what happened. With small airline that makes a lot of stops like the United airlines affiliate, sitting on the tarmac and negotiating could cause a chain reaction of delays and missed flight that might lose the company millions.

They have a policy for what to do in a situations like this and they implemented it when the time came. I don't know why people are so up in arms about this. Maybe everything would have been A OK had they used private security instead of state security.

----------


## dannno

> meh, doctors aren't more equal to anybody else.   I say if you are already IN a seat actually occupying it and not cause any problems, then you automatically get a pass.  I don't care if you are a toll collector.





> That is not how a fair random roll works. Are you telling me that if the plane had been delayed for any other reason, his patient would have died? sorry but just about everybody else thinks their lives and time is equally as important. He doesn't get a pass in this case cos he is a doctor


Yes, doctors do occasionally save people's lives, it's kind of their job.

If I owned an airline company in the free market, and I had to boot people off planes for whatever reason, I would not choose people who might be saving somebody's life the next day at their destination. That means super heroes and doctors. Although most super heroes don't need airplanes, they can already fly. But it's just smart business.

----------


## specsaregood

> My scenario is entirely plausible. I actually think that is what happened. With small airline that makes a lot of stops like the United airlines affiliate, sitting on the tarmac and negotiating could cause a chain reaction of delays and missed flight that might lose the company millions.
> 
> They have a policy for what to do in a situations like this and they implemented it when the time came. I don't know why people are so up in arms about this. Maybe everything would have been A OK had they used private security instead of state security.


I didn't say your scenario isn't plausible.  Just said it didn't happen here.  The airline planned poorly, it should cost them.  When I plan poorly, I eat it, I don't tell my customers to eat it.   Ok, so they might lose millions, that means there was an awful lot of wiggle room between the $800 they were offering and "millions".  I'd wager they would get a stampede of people offering to give up their seat for a measly 10k.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, doctors do occasionally save people's lives, it's kind of their job.
> .


So do lots of people.  It aint like he was in the middle of an operating procedure geez.   With your statement, prepare to give up every seat you think you purchased to a cop with a stand by ticket.

----------


## Schifference

> meh, doctors aren't more equal to anybody else.   I say if you are already IN a seat actually occupying it and not cause any problems, then you automatically get a pass.  I don't care if you are a toll collector.


^^This^^

----------


## Schifference

> So do lots of people.  It aint like he was in the middle of an operating procedure geez.   With your statement, prepare to give up every seat you think you purchased to a cop with a stand by ticket.


^^And This^^

----------


## dannno

> So do lots of people.  It aint like he was in the middle of an operating procedure geez.   With your statement, prepare to give up every seat you think you purchased to a cop with a stand by ticket.


lol, Cops?? $#@! that $#@!.. they would be the first off the plane.

----------


## otherone

They should have removed four passengers for "enhanced security screening" and taken off.  No one would have batted an eye, including the four passengers removed, because, "terrorism".

----------


## Jan2017

All United had to do was offer two free tickets for future travel to anywhere in the world or something.
People would have been fighting to get off the flight to Louisville with that offer, instead of them getting only three of the four seats "needed".

----------


## otherone

> Let assume that they needed those workers in order to keep their planes safe and on time and not transporting those worker would inconvenience way more people than the initial 4. Also assume that everything they did was according to he books and according to the contract signed by the passengers. Then what would you do if the rolled passenger still decides not to follow the rules?


beat the $#@! out of him?

----------


## oyarde

If I owned an airline and needed 4 employees 7 hours drive South or a 30 minute flight South in a place I already have many employees I would make different arrangements than calling cops on seated , paid customers  and having them pulled off. Of course I have ran businesses much more successful than american airline companies.LOL

----------


## Schifference

Society is being indoctrinated.

Next up complain your fries are cold and get beaten at McDonalds.

----------


## juleswin

> beat the $#@! out of him?


I dunno, I am the one asking you the question. What do you do to a person who refuses to follow the rules of the contract he signed when buying a ticket? and you don't have all day, wasted time could cause a chain reaction that would lead to loads of flight delays and cancellations.

----------


## Schifference

> I dunno, I am the one asking you the question. What do you do to a person who refuses to follow the rules of the contract he signed when buying a ticket? and you don't have all day, wasted time could cause a chain reaction that would lead to loads of flight delays and cancellations.


Start a reverse bid auction to leave. For example who will leave their seat for $10,000 dollars? Do I hear $9500? $9,000? Seat unoccupied for $1250.

----------


## juleswin

> Society is being indoctrinated.
> 
> Next up complain your fries are cold and get beaten at McDonalds.


I think society is being trained to read the fine prints in the documents they signs and also that going for cheapo airline tickets is not always a good idea. As long as consumers continue seeking cheaper and cheaper air fares, these sort of things would continue to happen.

People want a Hilton penthouse experience at a motel 6 basement room price. That ain't going to happen.

----------


## Danke

I read the news today, oh boy 
About a lucky man who made the grade 
And though the news was rather sad 
Well I just had to laugh 
I saw the photograph. 

He blew his mind out on a plane
He didn't notice that the rules had changed 
A crowd of people stood and stared 
They'd seen his face before 
Nobody was really sure 
If he was convicted before

----------


## AZJoe



----------


## Madison320

> I dunno, I am the one asking you the question. What do you do to a person who refuses to follow the rules of the contract he signed when buying a ticket? and you don't have all day, wasted time could cause a chain reaction that would lead to loads of flight delays and cancellations.


I totally agree. You can't just rip up contracts because they're unpopular. There's a lot of hatred on this forum for big business. I hear people complaining about the overbooking problem but how many of you would pay extra for a confirmed seat? Most of you will try to find the cheapest seat possible and agree to the possibility that you'll get bumped. 

That being said my guess is that the profit margins for the airlines are stretched thin by government regulations so they have to resort to trying to save money any way possible. Things like this probably wouldn't happen as much if we had a free market in air flight.

----------


## Danke

All airlines have their hands tied: (wrt involuntary bumping)


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

ASSuming the fare on such a short flight was $200 or less, $800 was the max by law that could be offered. (Your government rules, not United or other airlines).   $1600 in his case as he was traveling with his wife.


Now, should the Customer Service Rep. have realized the had a nut case (https://www.thelayoff.com/t/MK1fXsP http://www.courier-journal.com/story...ast/100318320/ ) probably medicated up, and gone on to another passenger, yeah, probably.   But it was the local cops that got unnecessarily physical.

----------


## Danke

> I totally agree. You can't just rip up contracts because they're unpopular. There's a lot of hatred on this forum for big business. I hear people complaining about the overbooking problem but how many of you would pay extra for a confirmed seat? Most of you will try to find the cheapest seat possible and agree to the possibility that you'll get bumped. 
> 
> That being said my guess is that the profit margins for the airlines are stretched thin by government regulations so they have to resort to trying to save money any way possible. Things like this probably wouldn't happen as much if we had a free market in air flight.


people go for the cheapest fare, period.  In reality it is not selling the same seat twice because many seat are fully refundable and/or changeable.   That is how many business travelers book because they want flexibility, late meetings, etc.


want government to step in and end this practice, guess what, fares will have to increase for everyone.


many savvy travelers purposely book on flights that have a high probability of over booking, so they can make some money as their travel needs are flexible.

----------


## Created4

> All airlines have their hands tied:
> 
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
> 
> ASSuming the fare on such a short flight was $200 or less, $800 was the max by law that could be offered. (Your government rules, not United or other airlines).   $1600 in his case as he was traveling with his wife.
> 
> 
> Now, should the Customer Service Rep. have realized the had a nut case probably medicated up, and gone on to another passenger, yeah, probably.   But it was the local cops that got unnecessarily physical.


Wasn't this law written to protect the consumer for their inconvenience? If an airline wanted to pay more, does this law seriously prevent them from doing so? I would be shocked if there weren't ways to for a private corporation to offer incentives to customers above "lawful" limits put in place.

Welcome back, BTW.

----------


## juleswin

> I totally agree. You can't just rip up contracts because they're unpopular. There's a lot of hatred on this forum for big business. I hear people complaining about the overbooking problem but how many of you would pay extra for a confirmed seat? Most of you will try to find the cheapest seat possible and agree to the possibility that you'll get bumped. 
> 
> That being said my guess is that the profit margins for the airlines are stretched thin by government regulations so they have to resort to trying to save money any way possible. Things like this probably wouldn't happen as much if we had a free market in air flight.


Yea the profits are thin but I am sure we can imagine scenarios where an industry has a very thin margin of profit even in the freest of markets. I personally blame the consumers for incidents like this, everybody is chasing cheaper and cheaper airfare and the airlines are being pushed to the limit to satisfy the needs of the consumer. We are at a point where airlines are squeezing in as many seats in those small planes in order to meet offer low fares. 

This is one of those situation where I think one gets what they paid for.

----------


## Danke

> Been flying Continental and then United for 20 years now, million mile flyer.
> 
> Have been in a high state of piss off over the merger for years now.
> 
> But this was the last straw, wrote a hate/ragequit mail to United and have switched to Jet Blue.







google JB, they have a lot of incidents too, and a lot fewer options for travel when TSHF, weather, ext.

----------


## angelatc

> They overbook by design. Usually a no show or 2 means there are no issues.


The seats were going to employees.  They say overbooked but i think they understaffed at SDF.

When the $800 offer was turned down they should have gone for $1000.....etc. just read danke's post.

----------


## angelatc

> Yea the profits are thin but I am sure we can imagine scenarios where an industry has a very thin margin of profit even in the freest of markets. I personally blame the consumers for incidents like this, .....


You should be blaming the government for limiting the options.



Sorry, But the FAA Has Decided Your 'Uber for Planes' Idea Can't Fly

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't know why people are so up in arms about this.


Because flying is a humiliating and miserable experience to begin with.

To have your bought and paid for property arbitrarily taken away from you, cops called on you and a beat down on top of it all, goes over the line, even for stupid meek and lazy AmeriKunts.

I hope this blows up into a $#@!storm of *galactic* proportions because maybe, just maybe, we'll get people pissed off about gate raping pedophiles and all the other nonsense that is modern air travel in AmeriKa.

As I already noted, I'm a twenty year million mile United flyer, and I ragequit them today.

Don't know why people are up in arms over this....pffffft...

----------


## Danke

> Indeed, this says all I need to know about this copsucker.
> 
> 
> I wont be flying united if I can reasonably find an alternative.







you can have this experience on all airlines, with the majors, you have a better chance to get to your destination because the have many more flights, planes and crews when things fall apart, and hubs to reroute you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I dunno, I am the one asking you the question. What do you do to a person who refuses to follow the rules of the contract he signed when buying a ticket? and you don't have all day, wasted time could cause a chain reaction that would lead to loads of flight delays and cancellations.


This has already been explained...this was NOT an overbooking situation.

*From my last United flight eticket:

Notice - Overbooking of Flights - Airline flights may be overbooked, and there is a slight chance that a seat will not be available on a flight for which a person has a confirmed reservation. If the flight is overbooked, no one will be denied a seat until airline personnel first ask for volunteers willing to give up their reservation in exchange for compensation of the airline’s choosing. If there are not enough volunteers, the airline will deny boarding to other persons in accordance with its particular boarding priority. With few exceptions, including failure to comply with the carrier’s check-in deadlines, which are available upon request from the air carrier, persons, denied boarding involuntarily are entitled to compensation. The complete rules for the payment of compensation and each airline’s boarding priorities are available at all airport ticket counters and boarding locations. Some airlines do not apply these consumer protections to travel from some foreign countries, although other consumer protections may be available. Check with your airline or your travel agent.*

Now, that is for an overbooking, which this was not.

This was ejecting paying a passenger in order to accommodate internal United transfer of airline staff.

This situation never should have *gotten* to this point, which is now what Munoz is saying.

The flight crew should have been accommodated in some other way, even if meant going to another airline, which happens often.

I sat next to a Delta pilot on a United flight to Newark a couple of months ago.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Consumed by the Wendigo my ass.


*AHA!*

I knew *this* story would draw you out!!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ASSuming the fare on such a short flight was $200 or less, $800 was the max by law that could be offered. (Your government rules, not United or other airlines).   $1600 in his case as he was traveling with his wife.


$200 when, a month before or 12 hours before departure?




> But it was the local cops that got unnecessarily physical.


No argument there.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> google JB, they have a lot of incidents too, and a lot fewer options for travel when TSHF, weather, ext.


I have, trust me, I don't take this lightly because it is work after all.

But this is just the latest outrage.

JB flies nonstop on a handy schedule for me, so that takes *half* of the late flight, and *all* of the missed connection worry away.

Your routing center took my normal flight and connection away from me last month.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Society is being indoctrinated.
> 
> Next up complain your fries are cold and get beaten at McDonalds.


"$#@! You. I'm eating!"

----------


## Danke

> I have, trust me, I don't take this lightly because it is work after all.
> 
> But this is just the latest outrage.
> 
> JB flies nonstop on a handy schedule for me, so that takes *half* of the late flight, and *all* of the missed connection worry away.
> 
> Your routing center took my normal flight and connection away from me last month.



A little surprised hearing that from a fellow "pilot."

You are familiar with hiring standards and how they vary.  Let's just say, I, and many, would not work for, or leave the Air Force for a bottom feeder.

You shop around for the cheapest doctor too?

I truely feel bad at our poor service, (never wait at a doctor's office?) if it were up to me, FA and CRS would not be unionized.

but safety, we are leading edge, many airlines have adopted our practices.


and don't get me wrong, we have our weak "sisters" that are nearly impossible to fire, but again, that is government involvement, EEOC, etc.

----------


## sparebulb

Did anyone else note that it took an Asian, drug-fueled, cop-beaten and bloodied homosexual to bring Danke out of the closet?

Also, this Dao guy has the perfect resume to satisfy all of the social-engineered, diverse qualities that Yonited has always sought for pilot recruits.

----------


## Danke

> If I owned an airline and needed 4 employees 7 hours drive South or a 30 minute flight South in a place I already have many employees I would make different arrangements than calling cops on seated , paid customers  and having them pulled off. Of course I have ran businesses much more successful than american airline companies.LOL


Just don't get too close to the sun with your wax feathers.

----------


## Danke

> Did anyone else note that it took an Asian, drug-fueled, cop-beaten and bloodied **** to bring Danke out of the closet?
> 
> Also, this Dao guy has the perfect resume to satisfy all of the social-engineered, diverse qualities that Yonited has always sought for pilot recruits.


Have you considered a sex change operation?

----------


## sparebulb

> Have you considered a sex change operation?


Sure, anyone flying an Airbus or fbw Boeing is already gay.

That is halfway there.

Welcome back, btw.

Now go get me a coke.

----------


## Danke

> Sure, anyone flying an Airbus or fbw Boeing is already gay.
> 
> That is halfway there.


Oh, you fly those little planes.

----------


## sparebulb

> Oh, you fly those little planes.


Yes, I flew a Cessna a couple of days ago.

----------


## otherone

> I totally agree. You can't just rip up contracts because they're unpopular.


sooo...beat the $#@! out of him?.

----------


## Schifference

> I totally agree. You can't just rip up contracts because they're unpopular.


Tell that to a judge that won't honor a landlord contract with a non paying tenant. Tell that to the judge that won't honor the elderly man's wish and legal contracts regarding living wills.

----------


## Carlybee



----------


## osan

> You are being disingenuous.


Oh really?  You would accuse me with zero positive evidence of something with which I would never soil myself?  Not sure what your motive is here.  Apparently, unlike you, I am unwilling to lay claim to knowledge of your intentions when in fact I have none.  I can only wonder what your purpose is here.




> The fact they are overbooking prevents anybody from traveling like a human being.


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  Is it some attempt to take a stab at the "human dignity" tack?

Overbooking is done all the time.  It helps maximize the efficiency of resource allocation.  Companies are well within their rights to pursue such measures.  The possibility of being bumped due to overbooking is written into every sales contract that results from the purchase of tickets.  Is there any more free-market solution that this, that two parties contract voluntarily with various conditions stipulated in the contract?  If a prospective passenger doesn't like the conditions, they are free to fly with another airline, travel by other means, or remain where they are.  Nobody is twisting anybody's arms here.

Running an airline is nightmarishly complex.  I am not an expert in those specific operations, but I have worked on similar models.  Logistics and planning are tough at best.  You think you just buy 2400 aircraft and start flying?  I could go chapter and verse listing the challenges of such operations and how difficult it can be to optimize them, as well as the criticality of such optimizations to one's ability to make a profit.  Sub-optimal scheduling will eat profits up so fast, you would not believe it.

So before you wax all point-fingery at the evil airlines, you would do well to gain a basic understanding of how such businesses operate and why they do what they do.  Or do you believe that every airline does the same things because they are all evil and only looking to screw their customers?

If there were a viable competitive advantage in eliminating over-booking, do you not think at least one of the airlines would have made hay of it in their marketing?  Perhaps you think they are all colluding to squeeze the passengers in oligopolistic unity?




> The flights are packed to the gills with people which does not make anybody comfortable.


You cannot be serious.  Comfortable?   You want to talk about uncomfortable?  Try taking a train across Europe for three days.  How about when steam liners took days to get from the UK to NY.  Now all you have to do is sit for 8 hours and you're there.  And if the comfort is so all-fired important, buy a first-class ticket.  If the price is too high, then I guess comfy really isn't that necessary.




> Pretending the planes can fly people at 100% capacity is a sick joke.


I have been non literally hundreds of flights that had not one empty seat.  It's done all the time and we always got to where we were going in good health.  What, exactly, are you arguing for here?  First-class seats for everyone at coach prices?  Fine.  How about we pass a law mandating it.  Then in about a month you can go back to trains, driving for five days cross-country, riding a bicycle from NYC to LA, hitch-hike, walk, or just stay home.

Seriously, what is it you want to see and how is it to be provided without bankrupting the carriers?  If you have no specifics, then I must conclude you are speaking gibberish.

----------


## Madison320

> To have your bought and paid for property arbitrarily taken away from you, cops called on you and a beat down on top of it all, goes over the line, even for stupid meek and lazy AmeriKunts.


You don't own the seats on the plane when you buy a plane ticket.

Suppose you have your own car service to compete with Uber. You offer rides to people that live nearby at a discount with an agreement that if there's an emergency, and you need your car, you'll refund the ticket. At the time you need to give someone a ride that they reserved, your wife slips in the shower and is unconscious. You call your neighbor and tell him his ride is cancelled, there's an emergency. You carry her to the car to take her to the hospital only to find your neighbor sitting in your car waiting to be taken for his reserved ride. You tell him he needs to get out. He refuses. You try to pull him out of the car but he grabs onto the seat so you whack him over the head, and drag him out of the car. Was your action justified?

----------


## Madison320

> Oh really?  You would accuse me with zero positive evidence of something with which I would never soil myself?  Not sure what your motive is here.  Apparently, unlike you, I am unwilling to lay claim to knowledge of your intentions when in fact I have none.  I can only wonder what your purpose is here.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  Is it some attempt to take a stab at the "human dignity" tack?
> 
> Overbooking is done all the time.  It helps maximize the efficiency of resource allocation.  Companies are well within their rights to pursue such measures.  The possibility of being bumped due to overbooking is written into every sales contract that results from the purchase of tickets.  Is there any more free-market solution that this, that two parties contract voluntarily with various conditions stipulated in the contract?  If a prospective passenger doesn't like the conditions, they are free to fly with another airline, travel by other means, or remain where they are.  Nobody is twisting anybody's arms here.
> 
> Running an airline is nightmarishly complex.  I am not an expert in those specific operations, but I have worked on similar models.  Logistics and planning are tough at best.  You think you just buy 2400 aircraft and start flying?  I could go chapter and verse listing the challenges of such operations and how difficult it can be to optimize them, as well as the criticality of such optimizations to one's ability to make a profit.  Sub-optimal scheduling will eat profits up so fast, you would not believe it.
> ...


That was a great post.

----------


## sparebulb

This story is really bringing them out.  (evidence: Danke)

A gay Asian actor, reprising the role of another gay Asian actor, blames Trump for the beating of a gay Asian airline passenger.

Makes perfect sense.

https://www.prisonplanet.com/star-tr...r-removal.html

----------


## juleswin

> This has already been explained...this was NOT an overbooking situation.
> 
> *From my last United flight eticket:
> 
> Notice - Overbooking of Flights - Airline flights may be overbooked, and there is a slight chance that a seat will not be available on a flight for which a person has a confirmed reservation. If the flight is overbooked, no one will be denied a seat until airline personnel first ask for volunteers willing to give up their reservation in exchange for compensation of the airlines choosing. If there are not enough volunteers, the airline will deny boarding to other persons in accordance with its particular boarding priority. With few exceptions, including failure to comply with the carriers check-in deadlines, which are available upon request from the air carrier, persons, denied boarding involuntarily are entitled to compensation. The complete rules for the payment of compensation and each airlines boarding priorities are available at all airport ticket counters and boarding locations. Some airlines do not apply these consumer protections to travel from some foreign countries, although other consumer protections may be available. Check with your airline or your travel agent.*
> 
> Now, that is for an overbooking, which this was not.
> 
> This was ejecting paying a passenger in order to accommodate internal United transfer of airline staff.
> ...


You assume that just because they are employees they weren't booked for the flight. Even employees get booked for flights and fly with tickets albeit discounted ones. The planes were overbooked according to them and he should have followed the order when he was instructed to get off the plane.

----------


## Danke

> You assume that just because they are employees they weren't booked for the flight. Even employees get booked for flights and fly with tickets albeit discounted ones. The planes were overbooked according to them and he should have followed the order when he was instructed to get off the plane.


I'm guessing due to weather or maintenance, the plane at the next station needed another crew, maybe last minute.  But yes, they get booked on flight, no discount, company does not charge crews to get into position for an assignment.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> All airlines have their hands tied:
> 
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
> 
> ASSuming the fare on such a short flight was $200 or less, $800 was the max by law that could be offered. (Your government rules, not United or other airlines).   $1600 in his case as he was traveling with his wife.
> 
> 
> Now, should the Customer Service Rep. have realized the had a nut case (https://www.thelayoff.com/t/MK1fXsP http://www.courier-journal.com/story...ast/100318320/ ) probably medicated up, and gone on to another passenger, yeah, probably.   But it was the local cops that got unnecessarily physical.


I keep seeing this erroneous talking point. Airlines do not have their hands tied. While there are guidelines for the involuntary phase, the voluntary phase is wide open. Delta cheerfully paid one couple $11k to "volunteer" away a weekend...  PR BS to me

and HI Danke!

----------


## Danke

> I keep seeing this erroneous talking point. Airlines do not have their hands tied. While there are guidelines for the involuntary phase, the voluntary phase is wide open. Delta cheerfully paid one couple $11k to "volunteer" away a weekend...  PR BS to me
> 
> and HI Danke!



That was $1000 a pop per persons for a family on multiple flights.  So it added up throughout the delays (many flights) to be $11,000.


try again.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights




> *Voluntary Bumping*
> 
> ... DOT has not mandated the form or amount of compensation that airlines offer to volunteers.

----------


## otherone

does he still get the 800 bucks?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

And it was a couple with a single child who volunteered to be bumped off of the originating flight, a few times over a weekend... 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#5032e0164de1

----------


## specsaregood

> All airlines have their hands tied:
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
> 
> ASSuming the fare on such a short flight was $200 or less, $800 was the max by law that could be offered. (Your government rules, not United or other airlines).   $1600 in his case as he was traveling with his wife.


That link clearly says Involuntary boarding.   So it doesn't seem like it would restrict voluntary.   so is this how the airline uses that restriction to artificially add a bull$#@! ceiling to somebody volunteering to give up their seat?   "Oh, nobody volunteered up to the ceiling for the involuntary phase, so instead of offering more we'll just move to involuntary where there is a ceiling and nothing they can do about it."

----------


## Danke

> That link clearly says Involuntary boarding.   So it doesn't seem like it would restrict voluntary.   so is this how the airline uses that restriction to artificially add a bull$#@! ceiling to somebody volunteering to give up their seat?   "Oh, nobody volunteered up to the ceiling for the involuntary phase, so instead of offering more we'll just move to involuntary where there is a ceiling and nothing they can do about it."


Hmm, using government imposed rules, maybe not smart, but dem are the rule in the " Contract for Carriage" You agree upon when you purchased the ticket.

----------


## specsaregood

> Hmm, using government imposed rules, maybe not smart, but dem are the rule in the " Contract for Carriage" You agree upon when you purchased the ticket.


Which goes back to it being extremely poor customer service.  Their hands were not "tied" they used government rules to try to save a buck and force him off when they had other options.   There is no reason for you to defend this practice Danke.

----------


## juleswin

> And it was a couple with a single child who volunteered to be bumped off of the originating flight, a few times over a weekend... 
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#5032e0164de1


Well it was $1300 per person per flight. The question still remains, what do you do when after a reasonable offer has been made and nobody agrees to give up their seats?

----------


## euphemia

This was not an overbooked flight.  It was a sold out flight.  If United needed the four people in Louisville the next day, they could have rented a van and driver for less than this impending lawsuit will cost.  It only takes about 5 hours to drive there.  

I don't think I have ever used United, but I never will.

----------


## Danke

> Which goes back to it being extremely poor customer service.  Their hands were not "tied" they used government rules to try to save a buck and force him off when they had other options.   There is no reason for you to defend this practice Danke.


My bad.   They should have upped the ante, to make it "voluntary."  Symantics got the best of me.

----------


## oyarde

> does he still get the 800 bucks?


My guess is more .

----------


## oyarde

> sooo...beat the $#@! out of him?.


Well , deep down inside , that would be what all airline employees and airport cops wish for the customers . Think of them as TSA that make more money .

----------


## Origanalist

Hell, I don't even take ferries anymore since the last time when a cop went up and down the rows of cars with a dog sniffing everyone. Screw it, I'll drive.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Well it was $1300 per person per flight. The question still remains, what do you do when after a reasonable offer has been made and nobody agrees to give up their seats?


It's easy to sit in judgement of what is "reasonable" from the outside... Individuals privately know how urgent their need is and many have damn good reasons to keep their seats no matter the offer. 

I know the bean counters want to avoid gouging paying out the ass for inconveniencing their customers, but that seems a small price to pay for the long term stability that overbooking facilitates. 

Needless to say they could have chartered a Gulfstream for much less than what this will cost them in the long run...

----------


## juleswin

> It's easy to sit in judgement of what is "reasonable" from the outside... Individuals privately know how urgent their need is and many have damn good reasons to keep their seats no matter the offer. 
> 
> I know the bean counters want to avoid gouging paying out the ass for inconveniencing their customers, but that seems a small price to pay for the long term stability that overbooking facilitates. 
> 
> Needless to say they could have chartered a Gulfstream for much less than what this will cost them in the long run...


And if they had to hire a gulfstream every time they had to remove someone from their seat, then they probably wouldn't be in business today. Anyone who bought the ticket should have known this was a possibility. But then again I don't think they considered running to an individual who cannot read the contract they signed when buying the ticket.

If I was the airline, I would consider suing the shyte out of the passenger for breach of contract. Make an example of him and other would shy away from misbehaving while flying.

----------


## DGambler

> I didn't say your scenario isn't plausible.  Just said it didn't happen here.  The airline planned poorly, it should cost them.  When I plan poorly, I eat it, I don't tell my customers to eat it.   Ok, so they might lose millions, that means there was an awful lot of wiggle room between the $800 they were offering and "millions".  I'd wager they would get a stampede of people offering to give up their seat for a measly 10k.


Exactly, they weren't offering fair market value for the seats, had they kept upping the price was, someone would have taken it.

----------


## Danke

> And if they had to hire a gulfstream every time they had to remove someone from their seat, then they probably wouldn't be in business today. Anyone who bought the ticket should have known this was a possibility. But then again I don't think they considered running to an individual who cannot read the contract they signed when buying the ticket.
> 
> If I was the airline, I would consider suing the shyte out of the passenger for breach of contract. Make an example of him and other would shy away from misbehaving while flying.


what I have heard, he was "misbehaving" and that is why the cops were called.  I can understand him being upset, his wife got up and left him there too.

but he seems to be mentally ill and/or medicated.   

No no breach of contract is necessary if the crew decides someone is not fit to be on your flight.

----------


## TheTexan

> what I have heard, he was "misbehaving" and that is why the cops were called.  I can understand him being upset, his wife got up and left him there too.
> 
> but he seems to be mentally ill and/or medicated.   
> 
> No no breach of contract is necessary if the crew decides someone is not fit to be on your flight.


That guy must have been crazy, he even disobeyed an Officer.

Which only crazy people do.

----------


## specsaregood

> And if they had to hire a gulfstream every time they had to remove someone from their seat, then they probably wouldn't be in business today.


And they would deserve to go out of business.  More likely, they  invest in some technology and personnel that can better streamline and plan for these situations.  But why bother with  that when you  have govt regulations protecting your ass..

----------


## Dr.3D

> I didn't say your scenario isn't plausible.  Just said it didn't happen here.  The airline planned poorly, it should cost them.  When I plan poorly, I eat it, I don't tell my customers to eat it.   Ok, so they might lose millions, that means there was an awful lot of wiggle room between the $800 they were offering and "millions".  I'd wager they would get a stampede of people offering to give up their seat for a measly 10k.


Of course for that 10K they could have chartered a flight on a small plane to get the excess passengers to their destination.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> And if they had to hire a gulfstream every time they had to remove someone from their seat, then they probably wouldn't be in business today. Anyone who bought the ticket should have known this was a possibility. But then again I don't think they considered running to an individual who cannot read the contract they signed when buying the ticket.
> 
> If I was the airline, I would consider suing the shyte out of the passenger for breach of contract. Make an example of him and other would shy away from misbehaving while flying.


^^^

----------


## specsaregood

> Of course for that 10K they could have chartered a flight on a small plane to get the excess passengers to their destination.


so what you  are saying is that they  had lots of other options other than: beat up and eject a customer or lose millions and go out of business?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You don't own the seats on the plane when you buy a plane ticket.
> 
> Suppose you have your own car service to compete with Uber. You offer rides to people that live nearby at a discount with an agreement that if there's an emergency, and you need your car, you'll refund the ticket. At the time you need to give someone a ride that they reserved, your wife slips in the shower and is unconscious. You call your neighbor and tell him his ride is cancelled, there's an emergency. You carry her to the car to take her to the hospital only to find your neighbor sitting in your car waiting to be taken for his reserved ride. You tell him he needs to get out. He refuses. You try to pull him out of the car but he grabs onto the seat so you whack him over the head, and drag him out of the car. Was your action justified?


That's not the contract nor what occurred here.

So it's wildly hypothetical and not relevant.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You assume that just because they are employees they weren't booked for the flight. Even employees get booked for flights and fly with tickets albeit discounted ones. The planes were overbooked according to them and he should have followed the order when he was instructed to get off the plane.


Yup, that's what we all should do, follow orders.

I'm not about to argue with you on this.

If you think it's justified to snatch a man off an airplane seat that he had bought and paid for, call cops who drag him off and give him a beating, be my guest.

----------


## specsaregood

> That's not the contract nor what occurred here.
> 
> So it's wildly hypothetical and not relevant.


I'm as big of a property  rights advocate as anybody and I agree that the airline should be able to remove anybody from their flights or refuse service for whatever reason -- even just to shuttle around some employees.   That does not mean that it is not horrible customer service to do so and gives people a valid reason to choose other airlines.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hell, I don't even take ferries anymore since the last time when a cop went up and down the rows of cars with a dog sniffing everyone. Screw it, I'll drive.


That'll only be an option for a while longer.

----------


## Dr.3D

> so what you  are saying is that they  had lots of other options other than: beat up and eject a customer or lose millions and go out of business?


But they thought they could get away with overbooking to save a few bucks.   Seems to have bitten them in the ass this time.

I remember when I would ride what was called "Student Standby" at a reduced price and usually got to take the next flight out. 

Seems like they could do that for anybody when they have an empty seat.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm as big of a property  rights advocate as anybody and I agree that the airline should be able to remove anybody from their flights or refuse service for whatever reason -- even just to shuttle around some employees.   That does not mean that it is not horrible customer service to do so and gives people a valid reason to choose other airlines.


Bingo.

As I've said already in this thread, the whole flying experience is a miserable affront to (anybody with a lick of sense anyway) to your dignity and your liberty.

----------


## osan

> This story is really bringing them out.  (evidence: Danke)
> 
> A gay Asian actor, reprising the role of another gay Asian actor, blames Trump for the beating of a gay Asian airline passenger.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.
> 
> https://www.prisonplanet.com/star-tr...r-removal.html


It should be made clear that United had NOTHING to do with the beating.  That is wholly on the police.

----------


## specsaregood

> It should be made clear that United had NOTHING to do with the beating.  That is wholly on the police.


So you would give that same benefit to anybody else that ever called the  cops on somebody?

----------


## juleswin

> Yup, that's what we all should do, follow orders.
> 
> I'm not about to argue with you on this.
> 
> If you think it's justified to snatch a man off an airplane seat that he had bought and paid for, call cops who drag him off and give him a beating, be my guest.


I don't know how many times this has to be said but there are conditions on the ticket and he should have know this if he took the time to read the contract he signed before you are allowed to pay for a ticket. He should have followed the rules, the sort of rules that make it possible for the airline to offer cheap tickets. In today's world, people want to get a Hilton penthouse suite for the price of a Motel 6 room. Sadly, that is not how life works, you get what you pay for.

My biggest fear now is the fear of the govt coming in and telling airlines that they cannot do what United did.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

ISTM The police are at fault for the beating, the airline is at fault for enabling it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't know how many times this has to be said but there are conditions on the ticket and he should have know this if he took the time to read the contract he signed before you are allowed to pay for a ticket. He should have followed the rules, the sort of rules that make it possible for the airline to offer cheap tickets. In today's world, people want to get a Hilton penthouse suite for the price of a Motel 6 room. Sadly, that is not how life works, you get what you pay for.
> 
> My biggest fear now is the fear of the govt coming in and telling airlines that they cannot do what United did.


And it's been stated over and over again, that this was not a true over booking incident, where more paying customers bought more seats than what was available on a particular flight.

This was putting people off to support the airline's internal logistics.

But yeah, you're right, it's the airline's seat and they can do what they want with it.

They can run *every* motherfucker off, call the cops and mace the whole lot if they want.

And I can take my business elsewhere.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Rules vs Reality.

The rules may have given United the right, but reality is showing exercising it in this case to be wrong. I don't know how many times it has to be said that the airline could have kept raising the offer til someone bit. Or found other arrangements for the crew. I don't think the stockholders are as happy about being right in lawyers eyes as much as they are horrified to be wrong in the public's eyes...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ISTM The police are at fault for the beating, the airline is at fault for enabling it.


Agreed, the airline enabled this.

This is just one aspect of modern flying in AmeriKa.

Just one smart remark, just one argument, just the slightest bit of back talk anywhere in an airport to anybody in "authority" and you're liable to find yourself dragged off by cops.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Rules vs Reality.
> 
> The rules may have given United the right, but reality is showing exercising it in this case to be wrong. I don't know how many times it has to be said that the airline could have kept raising the offer til someone bit. Or found other arrangements for the crew. I don't think the stockholders are as happy about being right in lawyers eyes as much as they are horrified to be wrong in the public's eyes...


Yeah well, the rules, and compliance with same, are all that matters in a police state.

For United, it's called a Pyrrhic victory.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It should be made clear that United had NOTHING to do with the beating.  That is wholly on the police.


Bull$#@!.

They may not have laid a single hand on him, but they're just as culpable as the asshenhole who calls the cops on their neighbors for having a loud party and the cops show up and kill their dog.

Or a million other scenarios where people in disagreement could have possibly worked something out *instead* of calling the "authorities", but do not, and cops show up and do what they are designed to do, $#@! people up and/or throw them in jail.

Or kill them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

It's in the fine print of the contract. It's your own fault that you didn't read it...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's in the fine print of the contract. It's your own fault that you didn't read it...


Just another aspect of the police state.

Millions of laws that no one can understand and comply with.

Millions of contract points that no one can understand and comply with.

----------


## specsaregood

> Agreed, the airline enabled this.
> 
> This is just one aspect of modern flying in AmeriKa
> 
> Just one smart remark, just one argument, just the slightest bit of back talk anywhere in an airport to anybody in "authority" and you're liable to find yourself dragged off by cops.


Last time I  flew with the kid, we were in the restroom stall doing his business in , when he decided it was a  good time to talk to me about a minecraft story  from a youtube show.  The central character to the story  was named "bombie" and happened to be the name of the stuffed animal in his backpack.   So I got the kid (who talks loud) saying "bombie this", "bombie that", while In the stall at a freaking airport.  about gave me a heart attack.  Later, we had a good talk about what words you can't say at an airport....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Just another aspect of the police state.
> 
> Millions of laws that no one can understand and comply with.
> 
> Millions of contract points that no one can understand and comply with.


Was reading the fine print on a rather long (100s of pages) legal document the other day, and found some boilerplate that would have been extremely in the favor of the business that wanted me as a customer.  Upon questioning them, they replied, "oh, that doesn't apply, and we would never do that. It's just some default stuff." Now I tend to believe that for the most part the individuals I was dealing with are being honest, but if anything were to go wrong, you can bet that their corporate lawyers would be all about that fine print. They assure me that the "real" terms will be different, but I have yet to see it in writing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Why Should Police Help United Airlines Cheat Its Customers?*

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/10/wh...ted-airlines-c

United's action in having a man attacked and dragged off a flight yesterday was heinous. So is the fact that police officers cooperated.
The world is rightly abuzz over an awful incident yesterday in which a man was beaten and dragged off a plane by police at Chicago's O'Hare airport for the crime of wanting to use the seat he's paid for on a United Airline flight getting ready to leave for Louisville.

The man claimed to be a doctor who had patients to see the next morning, explaining why he neither took an initial offer made to everyone on the plane to accept $400 and a hotel room for the night in exchange for voluntarily giving up his seat nor wanted to obey a straight-up order to leave, in an attempt on United's part to clear four seats for its own employees on the full flight.

No one considered even the $800 that was offered after everyone had boarded enough for the inconvenience, so United picked four seats and just ordered those in them to vacate. But the one man in question was not interested in obeying. (Buzzfeed reports, based on tweets from other passengers, that the bloodied man did eventually return to the plane.)

While United's customer service policies in this case are clearly heinous and absurd, let's not forget to also cast blame on the police officers who actually committed the brutality on United's behalf. NPR reports that the cops attacking the man "appear to be wearing the uniforms of Chicago aviation police."

While there may be something to be said for the ability for private businesses to summon the help of the police to remove people from their premises if they refuse to leave peacefully and their presence is unwanted, there is no excuse for the police to cooperate when the reason their presence is unwanted is not "causing a disturbance" or being violent or threatening to other customers, or stealing goods or services, or doing anything wrong at all, but rather wanting to peacefully use the service they legitimately paid for.

Shame on both United for calling the cops on a passenger to make the lives of their employees and business easier, and shame on the police for having any part of it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Was reading the fine print on a rather long (100s of pages) legal document the other day, and found some boilerplate that would have been extremely in the favor of the business that wanted me as a customer.  Upon questioning them, they replied, "oh, that doesn't apply, and we would never do that. It's just some default stuff." Now I tend to believe that for the most part the individuals I was dealing with are being honest, but if anything were to go wrong, you can bet that their corporate lawyers would be all about that fine print. They assure me that the "real" terms will be different, but I have yet to see it in writing.


You have *nothing* if it is not in writing.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## otherone

> what I have heard, he was "misbehaving" and that is why the cops were called.  I can understand him being upset, his wife got up and left him there too.
> 
> but he seems to be mentally ill and/or medicated.   
> 
> No no breach of contract is necessary if the crew decides someone is not fit to be on your flight.


Maybe United should consider hiring an airline psychiatrist so they can involuntarily commit crazy passengers who won't give up their seats for employees.

----------


## CaptUSA



----------


## CaptUSA



----------


## juleswin

> You have *nothing* if it is not in writing.


This is doubly true especially if the contract you signed contradicts what you were supposedly told in person by an employee. These sort of rules are put in place to enable the airlines to provide cheap ticket (relatively speaking), it is a pro customers rule and now they are getting shyte on for trying to satisfy their customers need for cheap tickets.

Some of the posts on this thread could be confused for DU chatter. Big corporation vewy vewy bad cos they are trying to make profit so they can stay in business while satisfying the needs of their bargain hungry customer base. Big bad private corporation shouldn't be in business cos they cannot kiss the as* of every single one of their customers by bending the rules.

I would be flying United just as long as they have the cheap ticket cos I just like most people out there is looking for a bargain

----------


## Todd

> Just another aspect of the police state.
> 
> Millions of laws that no one can understand and comply with.
> 
> Millions of contract points that no one can understand and comply with.


I'm using that....

----------


## juleswin

> 


Ironic that the stupid passenger is actually the one that gave United a black eye. I would personally sue him for breach of contract or something. You want to send a clear message to these type people who cannot follow simple rules that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Just because you are a doctor doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply to you.

----------


## Danke

More details are coming out.  Looks like he ran back onto the airplane before cops called.  He later took swings at cops, that is when they pulled him off.

----------


## SeanTX

> More details are coming out.  Looks like he ran back onto the airplane before cops called.  He later took swings at cops, that is when they pulled him off.


I haven't read that -- even if he "later took swings" at an Enforcer I could care less -- he was assaulted/battered first. Plus he was likely in "fight or flight" mode due to how he was treated, and possibly due to having had his head slammed into an arm rest.

----------


## Schifference

Where were all the good Samaritan's? You know a person that feel's like okay what the heck, I can wait. Hello, airlines let the good doctor stay I will go in his place?

----------


## juleswin

> I haven't read that -- even if he "later took swings" at an Enforcer I could care less -- he was assaulted/battered first. Plus he was likely in "fight or flight" mode due to how he was treated, and possibly due to having had his head slammed into an arm rest.


Did you even read what you are replying to? I am not sure if I believe the claim but if you do believe it. It says that he ran back onto he airplane *before cops were called*. So no heads were slammed into any arm rests before he allegedly swung at said enforcers.

Personally, he doesn't seem to me like someone who would leave his seat even to pee after he was told that they might be removing him.

----------


## Schifference

> Did you even read what you are replying to? I am not sure if I believe the claim but if you do believe it. It says that he ran back onto he airplane *before cops were called*. So no heads were slammed into any arm rests before he allegedly swung at said enforcers.
> 
> Personally, he doesn't seem to me like someone who would leave his seat even to pee after he was told that they might be removing him.


I wonder how he treats his patients. Does he ever send any away for being a few minutes late to their appointment? Does he ever refuse to see a new patient?

----------


## juleswin

> I wonder how he treats his patients. Does he ever send any away for being a few minutes late to their appointment? Does he ever refuse to see a new patient?


Good questions, also does he call the police if a patient after being told to leave sticks around inside his office? I bet the answer is a yes. It is one thing to disobey govt rules, it entirely a different animal when you come into a private contract and refuse to abide by your own portion of the deal. 

It is this kind of knee jerk, hate corporation outrage is the reason why I think society would never get rid of govt. Most people want to eat their cakes and have it too and you can only do that with govt around to make it happen.

----------


## Danke

> I wonder how he treats his patients. Does he ever send any away for being a few minutes late to their appointment? Does he ever refuse to see a new patient?



Do do doctors ever make their patients wait because the overbook....yep, all the time.

----------


## Madison320

> I don't know how many times this has to be said but there are conditions on the ticket and he should have know this if he took the time to read the contract he signed before you are allowed to pay for a ticket. He should have followed the rules, the sort of rules that make it possible for the airline to offer cheap tickets. In today's world, people want to get a Hilton penthouse suite for the price of a Motel 6 room. Sadly, that is not how life works, you get what you pay for.
> 
> My biggest fear now is the fear of the govt coming in and telling airlines that they cannot do what United did.


"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unloaded on United Airlines Wednesday in the wake of the forced removal of a passenger from a Chicago flight earlier this week, slamming the airlines attitude as awful and calling on the Trump administration to act."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ke-uproar.html

----------


## tod evans

> "New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie .....  calling on the Trump administration to act."


??

What a $#@!ing idiot!

----------


## Danke



----------


## Madison320

> Good questions, also does he call the police if a patient after being told to leave sticks around inside his office? I bet the answer is a yes. It is one thing to disobey govt rules, it entirely a different animal when you come into a private contract and refuse to abide by your own portion of the deal. 
> 
> It is this kind of knee jerk, hate corporation outrage is the reason why I think society would never get rid of govt. Most people want to eat their cakes and have it too and you can only do that with govt around to make it happen.


I totally agree. Envy and hatred of big business is alive and well, even in a Ron Paul Forum. That's why I'd never start a business in the US.

----------


## tod evans

> //


Pffffffft!

Black broad and a liberal.....

----------


## juleswin

> "New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unloaded on United Airlines Wednesday in the wake of the forced removal of a passenger from a Chicago flight earlier this week, slamming the airline’s attitude as “awful” and calling on the Trump administration to act."
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ke-uproar.html


This is the reason why we cannot have nice things. Now govt is going to try and come in to make sure I am thoroughly protected from signing contracts that ensure that my airfares are relatively low. 

And to the people who want to put all the blame on govt, is there any evidence that the airline companies have been lobbying(tried to lobby) to change the rules about compensation? cos if they hate it so much, I am sure they could include it in their list of grievances when talking to uncle Sam. This is a feature of the free market not a bug, cheapo services like we see with cut rate airline companies goes hand in hand with inconveniences like this. Love it or leave it.

----------


## juleswin

> Pffffffft!
> 
> Black broad and a liberal.....


I think it is the sight of blood that disturbs most people. Had they done a bloodless knockout of the offending passenger and dragged his lifeless body out of the plane, I doubt we would have heard so much about it.

I also wonder if the black lady had anything in her contract about getting violently removed from the plane for misbehaving? cos if there is nothing about that, then they better leave her alone, am I right RPF bleeding hearts?

----------


## timosman

> Do do doctors ever make their patients wait because the overbook....yep, all the time.


Do they drag them out from the waiting room? Yes, all the time.

----------


## timosman

> I think it is the sight of blood that disturbs most people. Had they done a bloodless knockout of the offending passenger and dragged his lifeless body out of the plane, I doubt we would have heard so much about it.
> 
> I also wonder if the black lady had anything in her contract about getting violently removed from the plane for misbehaving? cos if there is nothing about that, then they better leave her alone, am I right RPF bleeding hearts?

----------


## Schifference

> Do they drag them out from the waiting room? Yes, all the time.


Do they refuse to leave? All the time!

----------


## Danke

> I think it is the sight of blood that disturbs most people. Had they done a bloodless knockout of the offending passenger and dragged his lifeless body out of the plane, I doubt we would have heard so much about it.
> 
> I also wonder if the black lady had anything in her contract about getting violently removed from the plane for misbehaving? cos if there is nothing about that, then they better leave her alone, am I right RPF bleeding hearts?



ROMULUS, MI - A University of Michigan professor pleaded guilty Monday to one count of disorderly conduct in connection with a Dec. 19 incident on a Delta flight at Detroit Metro Airport.
Rhima Coleman appeared in 34th District Court to enter her guilty plea but remained mostly quiet during the court proceedings. Coleman's attorney, Dov Lustig, asked her a series of questions in front of Judge David Parrott to establish Coleman's involvement in a confrontation on the flight which led to her being dragged off of the plane by airport security.

Throughout the course of questioning, Coleman acknowledged that during a conversation with airport security there was a confrontation that led to her being asked to leave the plane. Coleman admitted that she said something back to airport security that created an atmosphere that was disorderl


http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/...ilty_to_1.html

----------


## timosman

> ??
> 
> What a $#@!ing idiot!


I support Christie. The airlines needs to stop selling lottery tickets and start selling real tickets instead. You bought the promise of cheap tickets in return for the flights packed to the gills. Now the tickets are not cheap anymore but the flights are still packed. Who is an idiot now?

----------


## CaptUSA

> This is the reason why we cannot have nice things. Now govt is going to try and come in to make sure I am thoroughly protected from signing contracts that ensure that my airfares are relatively low. 
> 
> And to the people who want to put all the blame on govt, is there any evidence that the airline companies have been lobbying(tried to lobby) to change the rules about compensation? cos if they hate it so much, I am sure they could include it in their list of grievances when talking to uncle Sam. This is a feature of the free market not a bug, cheapo services like we see with cut rate airline companies goes hand in hand with inconveniences like this. Love it or leave it.


Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this.  This is not how you resolve contract disputes.

I mean, I haven't read the fine print, but I don't believe the contract states that if you refuse to give up your seat that you will be assaulted by hired thugs.

You are focusing on the contract - you should be focusing on the methods of enforcement.  If he had remained in his seat in violation of the contract, then the airline could follow it up with a tort and recouped any losses.

I ask you to reconsider this madness.


ETA:  Christie's preferred solution, more government, is even worse!

----------


## juleswin

> Do they drag them out from the waiting room? Yes, all the time.


I work in an inpatient hospital floor and believe you me, we call police/hospital security all the time on patients who do not follow rules. And they are not all combative patients, we even called hospital security once on a patient who refused to discharge. 

Follow the rules or security is there to take care of you. It is really that simple but remember you can leave and go to the business down the street that allows you to do whatever you please

----------


## Danke

> I support Christie. The airlines needs to stop selling lottery tickets and start selling real tickets instead. You bought the promise of cheap tickets in return for the flights packed to the gills. Now the tickets are not cheap anymore but the flights are still packed. Who is an idiot now?


You apparently.  Adjusted for inflation, air travel is much cheaper than before, and much safer.

----------


## juleswin

> Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this.  This is not how you resolve contract disputes.
> 
> I mean, I haven't read the fine print, but I don't believe the contract states that if you refuse to give up your seat that you will be assaulted by hired thugs.
> 
> You are focusing on the contract - you should be focusing on the methods of enforcement.  If he had remained in his seat in violation of the contract, then the airline could follow it up with a tort and recouped any losses.
> 
> I ask you to reconsider this madness.


It is a time sensitive business, they needed the seats for "must fly" employees to board the plane. They could easily lose more money than anything the customer can pay out in the event of a successful court case.

If you break the contract, then the airline has to take the necessary means to enforce said contract and continue their time sensitive business. If it bothers you so much then don't break your contract in the first place. I am saying this know full well that a passenger's only option is to sue when the airline breaks its contract with them. But life is not fair.

----------


## Schifference

What would have happened had all the passengers on the boarded plane were RPF members? Would we have collectively agreed that the airline had the right to evict 4 passengers? Would we then collectively persuade the person that hit the bad lottery that he should de-board?

----------


## CaptUSA

> It is a time sensitive business, they needed the seats for "must fly" employees to board the plane. They could easily lose more money than anything the customer can pay out in the event of a successful court case.
> 
> If you break the contract, then the airline has to take the necessary means to enforce said contract and continue their time sensitive business. If it bothers you so much then don't break your contract in the first place. I am saying this know full well that a passenger's only option is to sue when the airline breaks its contract with them. But life is not fair.


And like I said, if their enforcement method is in the contract, fine.  But I doubt it is.  Does the contract really state, "up to and including being forcibly removed from the aircraft by enforcement agents"?!  This guy was not creating a danger to anyone except the airlines scheduling systems.  That's a tort; not a crime.

And I recognize the impact to the airlines business - but that is part of their tort!  They would be entitled to sue for damages.  

Understand the free market before you think can tell us how this event was a "feature".

----------


## timosman

> You apparently.  Adjusted for inflation, air travel is much cheaper than before, and much safer.


We also have more leg room and no luggage fees.

----------


## Danke

> What would have happened had all the passengers on the boarded plane were RPF members? Would we have collectively agreed that the airline had the right to evict 4 passengers? Would we then collectively persuade the person that hit the bad lottery that he should de-board?


They start with who paid the lower fares.  Not really a lottery.

----------


## juleswin

> And like I said, if their enforcement method is in the contract, fine.  But I doubt it is.  Does the contract really state, "up to and including being forcibly removed from the aircraft by enforcement agents"?!  This guy was not creating a danger to anyone except the airlines scheduling systems.  That's a tort; not a crime.
> 
> And I recognize the impact to the airlines business - but that is part of their tort!  They would be entitled to sue for damages.  
> 
> Understand the free market before you think can tell us how this event was a "feature".


Just look around you and observe how many business have/will call bouncer/security to remove noncomplying customers. You would come to the realization that govt typically is the one that gets in the way of private businesses from bouncing more people out. Look at real estate business and how govt over protects renters. In a world without govt you would see more business employing security to remove people not less.

This is why I say that this is a feature not a bug of the free market. Nobody likes to do it but every once in a while enforcers have to be called in to remove paying customers from the premises.

----------


## Schifference

> They start with who paid the lower fares.  Not really a lottery.


Okay. But if the plane were loaded with RPF members and an announcement came out that 4 people had to leave and who would be chosen what would the people here do? I would play by the rules. If my name came up I would get off the plane.

----------


## Danke

> Okay. But if the plane were loaded with RPF members and an announcement came out that 4 people had to leave and who would be chosen what would the people here do? I would play by the rules. If my name came up I would get off the plane.


We'd start with the Chat Punks, then by reverse seniority by join date.

----------


## timosman

> Okay. But if the plane were loaded with RPF members and an announcement came out that 4 people had to leave and who would be chosen what would the people here do? I would play by the rules. If my name came up I would get off the plane.


Why? Just pretend you are mum or sleeping.

----------


## juleswin

> We'd start with the Chat Punks, then by reverse seniority by join date.


I think after all this talk, I would relinquish my seat. I would be afraid that some people would personally remove me with extreme prejudice for being a hypocrite if I refused to leave

----------


## CaptUSA

> Just look around you and observe how many business have/will call bouncer/security to remove noncomplying customers.


Um no.  They have security to remove "violent" customers.  That's why they call them "security" - they are there to provide a service to the business and other customers to keep them secure.  You don't commit assault if no assault has been committed against you!  Geez, what part of this can't you understand?!!

The right course of action here would have been to tell the guy that this could cost him a lot of money if he didn't give up his seat.  Instead, they assaulted him.  (or got someone else to do it for them.)  You aren't justified in using force to settle a contract dispute unless that is stated in the contract!

----------


## angelatc

> Well it was $1300 per person per flight. The question still remains, what do you do when after a reasonable offer has been made and nobody agrees to give up their seats?


"Reasonable" is a subjective term, but I'll let that slide.  You rent a car for your employees.

----------


## Ender

> Um no.  They have security to remove "violent" customers.  That's why they call them "security" - they are there to provide a service to the business and other customers to keep them secure.  You don't commit assault if no assault has been committed against you!  Geez, what part of this can't you understand?!!
> 
> The right course of action here would have been to tell the guy that this could cost him a lot of money if he didn't give up his seat.  Instead, they assaulted him.  (or got someone else to do it for them.)  You aren't justified in using force to settle a contract dispute unless that is stated in the contract!


For me the right course of action would be to have a decent Customer Service objective and to send their privileged workers off by car or private plane.

----------


## phill4paul

> "Reasonable" is a subjective term, but I'll let that slide.  You rent a car for your employees.


 
 Absolutely. You don't penalize paying customers by failing to plan. Personnel management is the airlines responsibility. Send them by car. Find some space on a competing airline. Work the problem without inconveniencing the customer.

----------


## osan

> So you would give that same benefit to anybody else that ever called the  cops on somebody?


Valid point.

I would also add that the doctor in question apparently has history of drug-related offenses and had surrendered his medical license in 2015 because of it.  Apparently, he was trading drugs for gaysex with patients.  There's also reports of his having serious problems with anger.  There's more to it, but that gives a hint that the man was not necessarily the victim portrayed by media.  He still might be, of course, but I only make the point that it appears there may be more to the story than the media are reporting.

----------


## osan

> Just another aspect of the police state.


Whoa there, cowboy.  Is the right of contract one of the cornerstones of a free land?

Can't have it both ways, now.  If we retain the _fundamental_ right, then all retain it.  If all retain it, they are free to make offers.  Others are free to accept or reject them.  That the conditions of an offer offends one's wishes, it does not follow that those placing them are outside of their rights to do so.

Or is it the contention that one retains the right to fly on another man's aircraft in accord with no restrictions or other conditions?




> Millions of laws that no one can understand and comply with.


Firstly, there are not.  You refer to STATUTES, which are decidedly _not_ Law.  They are not contractual, but forced impositions foisted upon people.  BIG difference.




> Millions of contract points that no one can understand and comply with.


Are you suggesting statutory law is contractual?  I do not grok.

----------


## Danke

> "Reasonable" is a subjective term, but I'll let that slide.  You rent a car for your employees.





> It is about overbooking, Danke has confirmed that the airline employees also use a booked ticket to fly. They just don't waltz into a flight without using internal means to book a ticket. Also you have no idea why the employees need to be in Louisville the next day. For all we know, they were needed that night or needed to have a good night sleep in preparation for a long shift the next day. You just don't know.



That flight was due in at 8pm.  I'd imagine the crew was being positioned for an early morning flight.   Certain rest requirements are written in federal regulations.  Others by contracts between the employer and employees.   A 6 hour rental car would likely  violate most agreements, and who know how long of a day the crew already had.

----------


## Ender

> Absolutely. You don't penalize paying customers by failing to plan. Personnel management is the airlines responsibility. Send them by car. Find some space on a competing airline. Work the problem without inconveniencing the customer.


*'Zactly.*

----------


## Ender

> Valid point.
> 
> I would also add that the doctor in question apparently has history of drug-related offenses and had surrendered his medical license in 2015 because of it.  Apparently, he was trading drugs for gaysex with patients.  There's also reports of his having serious problems with anger.  There's more to it, but that gives a hint that the man was not necessarily the victim portrayed by media.  He still might be, of course, but I only make the point that it appears there may be more to the story than the media are reporting.


SO. WHAT.

The man's past was brought up to make the airline actions look legit. If every time someone was abused by the state their past was brought up, everyone would be in a crap-hole.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Oh, hey, danke. I thought a wendigo got you. Glad you got away, man.

----------


## Danke

*Pentagon Awards Contract To United Airlines To Forcibly Remove Assad*

----------


## Danke

> Oh, hey, danke. I thought a wendigo got you. Glad you got away, man.


Never trust something from an Injun.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Whoa there, cowboy.  Is the right of contract one of the cornerstones of a free land?
> 
> Can't have it both ways, now.  If we retain the _fundamental_ right, then all retain it.  If all retain it, they are free to make offers.  Others are free to accept or reject them.  That the conditions of an offer offends one's wishes, it does not follow that those placing them are outside of their rights to do so.


I didn't read the contract, but unless it states that he could be forcibly removed once seated, then their response was NOT part of the contract.  They may be correct that there's language in the contract that he could possibly be bumped.  But if they let him on the plane, that's their fault.  They may win the court case against him and recoup their losses through the tort system, but they should NOT commit violence against him!  Likewise, if they barred him from entry onto the plane, he should NOT force his way on, even if he had a proper ticket.  

That's what torts are for!!!  Contracts are not permission to commit violence - unless it specifically states in the contract that violent actions may result.

You know, I'm surprised so many "liberty" people aren't understanding this.  If they really had concerns, there were several ways to prevent this.  First, don't board the plane until you are sure how many seats there are.  Well, damn, that seems easy enough.  Second, they can keep raising the price of the compensation until enough passengers take it (this is what they usually do).  If the price gets too high, the airlines will find a cheaper way to shift around their resources.  Lastly, if they want to really pressure someone, they'll tell him he is in breach of contract and his refusal will end up costing him thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and reparations - and if he still doesn't comply, then they have every right to seek their fair retribution.  *But they DON'T get to violently enforce a contract!*

----------


## angelatc

> That flight was due in at 8pm.  I'd imagine the crew was being positioned for an early morning flight.   Certain rest requirements are written in federal regulations.  Others by contracts between the employer and employees.   A 6 hour rental car would likely  violate most agreements, and who know how long of a day the crew already had.


But it's ok to take a medical professional off schedule, because.....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Never trust something from an Injun.


Well, naw, I heard it from that karate guy.  Wendigo hunters/danke's body recovery thread

Anyway. Glad to see ya back, man.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Whoa there, cowboy.  Is the right of contract one of the cornerstones of a free land?
> 
> Can't have it both ways, now.  If we retain the _fundamental_ right, then all retain it.  If all retain it, they are free to make offers.  Others are free to accept or reject them.  That the conditions of an offer offends one's wishes, it does not follow that those placing them are outside of their rights to do so.
> 
> Or is it the contention that one retains the right to fly on another man's aircraft in accord with no restrictions or other conditions?


That was made in the context of the following remarks. A sure sign of a police state is the smothering overlay of laws and rules that are incomprehensible to any sane man. Contract law that can end up with cops being called on you, which is everything and everyday in AmeriKa, is just as bad, if it is written at such length and stilted legalese as to be incomprehensible.

Ever sit down and read a car rental contract from cover to cover?




> Firstly, there are not.  You refer to STATUTES, which are decidedly _not_ Law.  They are not contractual, but forced impositions foisted upon people.  BIG difference.


I am referring to ALL of it, I just didn't have the time or inclination to type it all out. "It" being the staggering number, complexity and contradictory nature of the millions and millions of laws, codes, statutes, edicts, mandates, regulations, ordinances, _fatwas_, rules, proclamations and orders that we are expected to know and comply with fully, every single day.




> Are you suggesting statutory law is contractual?  I do not grok.


No, see above.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Judge Nap's position on it...





> Commenting on the much-talked-about incident Sunday at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in which police forcibly removed a passenger from his seat and a commercial flight so space could be made available to shuttle United employees on the flight, *Napolitano opines that the passenger had “every right to stay” on the flight for which he had paid.* In contrast, says Napolitano, the police behaved improperly in using force to remove the passenger.
> 
> 
>  Napolitano explains:*
> When the police arrive, they shouldn’t be unthinking automatons who do whatever the person calls asks them to do.* *Meaning, if the reason for their call is not a crime, they should leave. They have no right using violence to resolve a civil dispute….
> *
> If the passenger is politely or reasonably sitting there waiting for the flight to take off, he’s not committing a crime, he’s not engaged in violence, he’s not doing anything that justifies police force.


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-united-plane/

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But it's ok to take a medical professional off schedule, because.....


Or anybody else for that matter.

It's really very simple: power corrupts.

Airlines and the crews know that all they have to do is shout "unruly passenger" and the entire police state will fall over some poor bastard's head, thus absolving them of blame or having to deal with it.

I've seen the same disgraceful displays in my business as well.

The airlines could take some lessons from the cruise ship industry, where they have thousands and thousands of people to deal with, in all manner of situations, for days and weeks at a time, with booze and god knows what else thrown into the mix, often hundreds of miles from land.

Sure, they have their incidents of unruly passengers being dragged off the vessel, but not nearly at the rate of airlines.

Maybe if the whole flying experience was less degrading and humiliating people would not be on edge so much.

I know it takes me a day to cool down my "punch some motherfucker in the head" reflex after going through that nonsense.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Commenting on the much-talked-about incident Sunday at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in which police forcibly removed a passenger from his seat and a commercial flight so space could be made available to shuttle United employees on the flight, Napolitano opines that the passenger had “every right to stay” on the flight for which he had paid. In contrast, says Napolitano, the police behaved improperly in using force to remove the passenger.
> 
> 
> Napolitano explains:
> 
> When the police arrive, they shouldn’t be unthinking automatons who do whatever the person calls asks them to do. Meaning, if the reason for their call is not a crime, they should leave. They have no right using violence to resolve a civil dispute….
> 
> 
> If the passenger is politely or reasonably sitting there waiting for the flight to take off, he’s not committing a crime, he’s not engaged in violence, he’s not doing anything that justifies police force.


And there you have it.

----------


## Danke

> Or anybody else for that matter.
> 
> It's really very simple: power corrupts.
> 
> Airlines and the crews know that all they have to do is shout "unruly passenger" and the entire police state will fall over some poor bastard's head, thus absolving them of blame or having to deal with it.
> 
> I've seen the same disgraceful displays in my business as well.
> 
> The airlines could take some lessons from the cruise ship industry, where they have thousands and thousands of people to deal with, in all manner of situations, for days and weeks at a time, with booze and god knows what else thrown into the mix, often hundreds of miles from land.
> ...


Not bad if you are willing to pay for it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Valid point.
> 
> I would also add that the doctor in question apparently has history of drug-related offenses and had surrendered his medical license in 2015 because of it.  Apparently, he was trading drugs for gaysex with patients.  There's also reports of his having serious problems with anger.  There's more to it, but that gives a hint that the man was not necessarily the victim portrayed by media.  He still might be, of course, but I only make the point that it appears there may be more to the story than the media are reporting.


We bemoan every day the sorry state of humanity and manhood that has allowed us to get to this point of subjugation and tyranny.

Yet we bash the ho mo doctor...because maybe we're jealous or annoyed at the fact that *he* is the *only* sort of "man" who will stand up and resist and raise hell?

Three other people hauled ass with nary a complaint, a polite tug of the forelock and a "by you leave milord".

----------


## dannno

> Judge Nap's position on it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-united-plane/
> 
> Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


What about private property and contract law?

My position on it is that what United did was really stupid from a customer service standpoint, and airlines are in the business of serving customers so that is really bad. They should have randomly chosen somebody else when the passenger refused based on the fact that he was a doctor and had patients to see. They should do the same thing if a father is on their way to their daughter's wedding or something. They should just move on until they find a passenger who either isn't needed for possibly life saving treatment or going to a once in a lifetime event or something.

But from a legal standpoint, pretty sure what they did was legal, although I'm not so sure now that the Judge has come out against it, but I still need more convincing.

----------


## juleswin

> But it's ok to take a medical professional off schedule, because.....


Yes it is OK to remove a medical profession from a flight. If his time was that important to him, maybe he should have paid for the more expensive ticket. The took a risk and he got burned, end of story.

----------


## Danke

> Been flying Continental and then United for 20 years now, million mile flyer.
> 
> Have been in a high state of piss off over the merger for years now.
> 
> But this was the last straw, wrote a hate/ragequit mail to United and have switched to Jet Blue.

----------


## Jan2017

> Valid point.
> 
> I would also add that the doctor in question apparently has history of drug-related offenses and had surrendered his medical license in 2015 because of it.  Apparently, he was trading drugs for gaysex with patients.  There's also reports of his having serious problems with anger.  There's more to it, but that gives a hint that the man was not necessarily the victim portrayed by media.  He still might be, of course, but I only make the point that it appears there may be more to the story than the media are reporting.


All this learned after the fact though . . .
 reports that the LEOs most probably "didn't even know his name"

United Airlines CEO has apparently gone from . . .
*"belligerent" passengers are treated like this and we'll do it again as part of protocol.*

to, now . . .
*"It will never happen again"*

Ya' need to please put that in your "contract" on the back of the ticket (?) . . . but it doesn't matter.

*United’s stock falls 1.1%, wipes out $255 million off the airline’s market cap*
_Carrier continues to draw flak for having customer dragged off plane
_


> We bemoan every day the sorry state of humanity and manhood that has allowed us to get to this point of subjugation and tyranny.
> 
> Yet we bash the ho mo doctor...,
> (others) a polite tug of the forelock and a "by you leave milord".


 But shareholders should have_ no fear_ . . .



> "the uproar will fade"


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/united...ading-cm772653

----------


## dannno

> Yes it is OK to remove a medical profession from a flight. If his time was that important to him, maybe he should have paid for the more expensive ticket. The took a risk and he got burned, end of story.


'Ok' doesn't mean they should do it. What if they had a patient die because they were absent? Some people actually feel bad for other people.

Either way, United is suffering for this their stock price dropped $1.4 billion. 

If they did what I said, they would not have lost $1.4 billion in stock value. Their CEO is kinda dumb.

----------


## juleswin

> Absolutely. You don't penalize paying customers by failing to plan. Personnel management is the airlines responsibility. Send them by car. Find some space on a competing airline. Work the problem without inconveniencing the customer.


The reason why we are having this discussion is because the airline planned ahead for a scenario where they needed to fly a vital employees to a location after their flights have been overbooked. I don't really blame the passenger for not planning for an event that occurs less 0.004% of the time. They implemented their legal plan and the doctor tried to fight his way out of a contract. He lost, the airline won and that is how the story went.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Judge Nap's position on it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-united-plane/
> 
> Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


Once again, the Judge gets it right.

----------


## juleswin

> Ok doesn't mean they should do it. What if they had a patient die because they were absent? Some people actually feel bad for other people.


Like some people have suggested, maybe he should have rented a car and driven the 4 hours and he would have still had enough sleep for morning surgery. Btw, there are always multiple doctors in a every ER to cover for just about every surgeon. Virtually nobody dies because 1 surgeon(if that is actually what he is) was 8 hrs late.

If the life of his patient was in line, maybe he should have made better plans of getting home. Ever think about that?

----------


## euphemia

The doctor paid for a seat on the plane.  He showed up on time and in his seat.  His luggage was stowed.  He's not the problem.  United's determination to get him off the plane so they could put the whole crew for Louisville on the plane is the problem.  The flight was not overbooked, so that provision does not apply.

If United needed this crew in Louisville, it is they who should have driven, not the doctor.

----------


## dannno

> the airline won


No, the airline lost $1.4 billion in one day..

They are a business, that is not the goal of being a business.

----------


## juleswin

> Commenting on the much-talked-about incident Sunday at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in which police forcibly removed a passenger from his seat and a commercial flight so space could be made available to shuttle United employees on the flight, Napolitano opines that the passenger had “every right to stay” on the flight for which he had paid. In contrast, says Napolitano, the police behaved improperly in using force to remove the passenger.
> 
> 
> Napolitano explains:
> 
> *When the police arrive, they shouldn’t be unthinking automatons who do whatever the person calls asks them to do. Meaning, if the reason for their call is not a crime, they should leave. They have no right using violence to resolve a civil dispute….*
> 
> If the passenger is politely or reasonably sitting there waiting for the flight to take off, he’s not committing a crime, he’s not engaged in violence, he’s not doing anything that justifies police force.


Just think of what he said in the bolded part of the article for a second. If the reason for the call is not a crime, the police should leave. Forget that the police sometimes assists citizens with first aid care, helps find your missing cat etc. In this case, the police were called because the customer was trespassing on the airlines property. Just because someone is sitting and looking all innocent doesn't mean a crime is not being committed.

I swear to God, the Judge hasn't been the same since Trump came on the scene. He has been slipping lately.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The reason why we are having this discussion is because the airline planned ahead for a scenario where they needed to fly a vital employees to a location after their flights have been overbooked. I don't really blame the passenger for not planning for an event that occurs less 0.004% of the time. They implemented their legal plan and the doctor tried to fight his way out of a contract. He lost, the airline won and that is how the story went.


No, no, no!  That is NOT the reason why we are having this conversation.  If that's all it was, it wouldn't even merit a comment.

No, it became an issue when the airline resorted to violence to enforce their contract because they thought they were in the right.  They may have been right - and they have every right to sue for their damages.  If he cost them money, they have a right to get it back if it's in their contract with him.  But they do NOT have the right to initiate violence against someone who is not being violent!  Why are you not getting this?!  A contract does not give you the right to initiate violence.

If it did, then the next time you hire a mechanic to work on your car, if you're dissatisfied with his work, does he have the right to use force to rob you?  No.  Because it's not a crime, it's a tort!!!!

----------


## juleswin

> No, the airline lost $1.4 billion in one day..
> 
> They are a business, that is not the goal of being a business.


Time to buy united stocks? cos once this hoopla dies down sensible investors will come back to scoop the stocks up.

----------


## Schifference

> No, the airline lost $1.4 billion in one day..
> 
> They are a business, that is not the goal of being a business.


If there is / was a stock dip it merely presents a great buying opportunity. Passengers need flights. This will blow over and the stock will rebound.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Just think of what he said in the bolded part of the article for a second. If the reason for the call is not a crime, the police should leave. Forget that the police sometimes assists citizens with first aid care, helps find your missing cat etc. In this case, the police were called because the customer was trespassing on the airlines property. Just because someone is sitting and looking all innocent doesn't mean a crime is not being committed.
> 
> I swear to God, the Judge hasn't been the same since Trump came on the scene. He has been slipping lately.


Ah, the "trespassing" excuse for violence.  Once again you lose.  Because they _let_ him on the plane.  See above for the ways to resolve this without violence.  If they would have prevented him from boarding in the first place and he forced his way onto the plane, then HE would be the initiator of violence.  But that's not what happened.  By your own standard, this was a contract dispute.  Neither party has a right to commit violence to enforce their position in the dispute no matter how much they deem themselves to be in the right.

----------


## Schifference

Ever think this is a false flag to take attention away from real issues?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ah, the "trespassing" excuse for violence.  Once again you lose.  Because they _let_ him on the plane.  See above for the ways to resolve this without violence.  If they would have prevented him from boarding in the first place and he forced his way onto the plane, then HE would be the initiator of violence.  But that's not what happened.  By your own standard, this was a contract dispute.  Neither party has a right to commit violence to enforce their position in the dispute no matter how much they deem themselves to be in the right.


Exactly, he was authorized and paid to be there.

----------


## dannno

> Ah, the "trespassing" excuse for violence.  Once again you lose.  Because they _let_ him on the plane.


What if he didn't leave the plane after the flight was over?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What about private property and contract law?


It's wrong to call the government to use violence against someone over a civil matter. The man committed no crime. 





> But from a legal standpoint, pretty sure what they did was legal, although I'm not so sure now that the Judge has come out against it, but I still need more convincing.


Maybe it was legal. But it sure as sht ain't lawful. Respectfully, dannno.

Hell, it's 'legal' for the government to fondle my balls just so I can move from point A to point B on an airplane. That doesn't make it right.

----------


## Ender

> What if he didn't leave the plane after the flight was over?


Completely different point.

What if you stayed in your seat after a movie and wouldn't leave.

----------


## dannno

> It's wrong to call the government to use violence against someone over a civil matter.


So if somebody is trespassing on your property and they won't leave, you... ?





> Maybe it was legal. But it sure as sht ain't lawful. Respectfully, dannno.


I think they are both the same, I'm not positive I could be wrong but I think what they did was legal and lawful - but it was also monumentally stupid and they shouldn't have done it from a business/humanitarian standpoint.

----------


## Schifference

Did the plane take off on schedule?

----------


## CaptUSA

> What if he didn't leave the plane after the flight was over?


Yep.  Discussed that earlier.  If he had done that, then after some time, minimal force could be applied to remove him after the plane was cleared.

But that was not the case here.  He was invited on the plane.  And he had a ticket to be there.  From that point on, it becomes a contract dispute.  A tort; not a crime.

----------


## juleswin

> No, no, no!  That is NOT the reason why we are having this conversation.  If that's all it was, it wouldn't even merit a comment.
> 
> No, it became an issue when the airline resorted to violence to enforce their contract because they thought they were in the right.  They may have been right - and they have every right to sue for their damages.  If he cost them money, they have a right to get it back if it's in their contract with him.  But they do NOT have the *right to initiate violence against someone who is not being violent*!  Why are you not getting this?!  A contract does not give you the right to initiate violence.
> 
> If it did, then the next time you hire a mechanic to work on your car, if you're dissatisfied with his work, does he have the right to use force to rob you?  No.  Because it's not a crime, it's a tort!!!!


Deny it all you want but he was trespassing on their property and he had to go. The reason why he had to be removed forcefully was because time was against them, they needed to act and they acted after 2 hrs of talking.

----------


## Ender

> So if somebody is trespassing on your property and they won't leave, you... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are both the same, I'm not positive I could be wrong but I think what they did was legal and lawful - but it was also monumentally stupid and they shouldn't have done it from a business/humanitarian standpoint.


Did they buy a ticket to be on your property for a certain amount of time or an event? Then they have every right to stay there until the time/event is over.

What the airlines did was NOT lawful.

----------


## Ender

> Deny it all you want but he was trespassing on their property and he had to go. The reason why he had to be removed forcefully was because time was against them, they needed to act and they acted after 2 hrs of talking.


He was NOT tresspassing; he was there legally and had PAID to be there. What the airlines did was comparable to throwing you out of a concert, that you paid for, so their employees  could have a seat.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ever think this is a false flag to take attention away from real issues?


No, there are any number of issues that will get everybody all wound up for a short period of time.

----------


## juleswin

> Exactly, he was authorized and paid to be there.


He also paid to have the fate of his flight to be in the hands of the airline by buying what I call a flexible ticket.

----------


## JK/SEA

now the question is how much will this guy get from the lawsuit?...

as i watched him being dragged away, it looked like he was thinking about all those millions he's going to get....

----------


## Schifference

Expect airlines to offer a "No bump ticket" that insures you will never ask to de-board. For a simple extra fee of just $79 per passenger you will not ever again need to worrry about over booking.

----------


## CaptUSA

> So if somebody is trespassing on your property and they won't leave, you...


There is a crime of criminal trespass, but that doesn't apply here.  You could say that he overstayed his welcome, but he believed he was welcome until the destination had been reached.  And they invited him on.

It's obvious that he wasn't being removed for criminal trespassing.  If that was the case, he would have been charged and arrested for it.  No, this was a civil matter - and they used violence to resolve it to their own satisfaction.  So completely wrong I can't believe people are defending it.

----------


## specsaregood

> now the question is how much will this guy get from the lawsuit?...
> 
> as i watched him being dragged away, it looked like he was thinking about all those millions he's going to get....


Hell, even if he doesn't get a penny, they'll spend more on lawyering than if they had just offered to rent him a stretch-Humvee and chauffeured him to KY.   This was a bad business decision all around.

----------


## juleswin

> He was NOT tresspassing; he was there legally and had PAID to be there. What the airlines did was comparable to throwing you out of a concert that you paid for, so their employess  could have a seat.


The ticket he bought had a clause that says that he could be bumped off the flight if the plane was overbooked. The airline then overbooked the plane with 4 "must fly" employees. The passengers were notified of the situation and they followed the protocol to remove 4 passengers.

One passenger picked refused to vacate his seat which immediately made him a trespasser.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Deny it all you want but he was trespassing on their property and he had to go. The reason why he had to be removed forcefully was because time was against them, they needed to act and they acted after 2 hrs of talking.


You could make a (weak) case for civil trespass, but definitely not criminal trespass!  Crime vs. torts.  Do some reading.

And time was only "against" them because they handled it in the worst possible manner.  I gave you 3 non-violent solutions earlier in this thread.  And none of them involve altering the existing contract.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The ticket he bought had a clause that says that he could be bumped off the flight if the plane was overbooked. The airline then overbooked the plane with 4 "must fly" employees. The passengers were notified of the situation and they followed the protocol to remove 4 passengers.
> 
> One passenger picked refused to vacate his seat which immediately made him a trespasser.


No it didn't.  It immediately became a contract dispute.  To be resolved through arbitration - not with violence!

Dammit, man, your are being obtuse.  We do NOT use violence to resolve contract disputes!  Think about what you are saying.  You are saying that anytime one party feels like they are in the right, they can use violence to get their way.  That's not how it's supposed to work!  This could have ended up costing the passenger a boatload of money - instead, it's going to cost United - because of their stupidity.  (and accommodation to the police state)

----------


## Danke

> Did the plane take off on schedule?


2 hours late.

----------


## Danke

> Expect airlines to offer a "No bump ticket" that insures you will never ask to de-board. For a simple extra fee of just $79 per passenger you will not ever again need to worrry about over booking.


They sorta already do.  Pay for an Economy Plus seat, or First Class.

----------


## Danke

> now the question is how much will this guy get from the lawsuit?...
> 
> as i watched him being dragged away, it looked like he was thinking about all those millions he's going to get....


The police did the violence, so I'd think they have the most on the line.   United will probably just settle out of court.

----------


## juleswin

> No it didn't.  It immediately became a contract dispute.  To be resolved through arbitration - not with violence!
> 
> Dammit, man, your are being obtuse.  We do NOT use violence to resolve contract disputes!  Think about what you are saying.  You are saying that anytime one party feels like they are in the right, they can use violence to get their way.  That's not how it's supposed to work!  This could have ended up costing the passenger a boatload of money - instead, it's going to cost United - because of their stupidity.  (and accommodation to the police state)


Time sensitive nature of the problem made it impossible for it to be settled any other way. The chose force which may I remind you all that violence is not always wrong.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Deny it all you want but he was trespassing on their property and he had to go.


No, he wasn't. To be clear, a trespasser is a person who is proceeding disregardfully of the limits of his own Individual rights. The passenger was not proceeding outside the limitations of his rights. This is a civil matter. It is not a legal matter. And you don't just call the cops to assault someone without asking if a crime was comitted. A crime was not committed. 





> The reason why he had to be removed forcefully was because time was against them, they needed to act and they acted after 2 hrs of talking.



lololol 

Needed to act on what crime?

----------


## Jan2017

> 2 hours late.


I was  only trying to find out how long of a flight for the United Airlines Express 3411 route . . . 
what I_ did_ find is that Flight 3411 has it's own Wikipedia page up already.

The Chicago Department of Aviation said that The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure 
and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department... The aviation police receive more training and better pay compared to private security guards, but less training and less pay than officers of the Chicago Police Department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ss_Flight_3411

*United 'clarifies' that Flight 3411 was not oversold
*https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...old/100331782/

----------


## Danke

Maybe United can bake him a cake.


*United Airlines Scores 5th Consecutive Perfect Score on Leading LGBT Equality Index*

----------


## euphemia

The doctor was in a seat he bought and paid for with the understanding he would be a passenger to Louisville.  He was on time, in his seat, luggage properly stowed.  He was not the problem.  United broke the law, because the plane was not overbooked.  It was sold out.    Every seat was full.  The law is very specific on this point.  The problem was United expected paying passengers to get off the plane in favor of United employees who were needed in Louisville the next day.  The crew should have been driven to Louisville.  Shoot, the airport has rentals.  No inconvenience at all.  Certainly no law enforcement on the plane, no blood (a biohazard which has to be cleaned up immediately to federal standards), and everyone goes to Louisville as planned.

The next day the CEO of United Airlines sent out an email and commented to the media that the doctor was disruptive.  He was not.  So now the doctor's entire history is out there on the internet because of some very stupid decisions on behalf of United Airlines.  

I'm sure the good doctor will not be flying with United any more.  He may own the airline after this, and good for him.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Time sensitive nature of the problem made it impossible for it to be settled any other way. The chose force which may I remind you all that violence is not always wrong.


Ugh...  They cause the "nature of the problem".  They could have stopped him before he got on the plane.  In that case, he would have had to initiate the violence to get on.  Then, I'd agree with you.  Because no matter how right he feels in his understanding of his contract, he does NOT have the right to initiate force to enforce it!

You're trying your best to justify this, but it's not working.  I also gave you two other ways they could have prevented this.  They chose to INITIATE force - not the passenger.  You need to brush up on liberty.  Just because you have a contract with someone doesn't mean you get to use violence to them to get what you think you're owed.  There is a system in place to handle disputes.

----------


## euphemia

You people keep saying the flight was overbooked.  There is federal law covering what happens in the case of overbooking, but it does not involve dragging an elderly doctor off a plane.  It involves paying money to unboarded passengers for the next flight or lodging, or whatever.

*This flight was not overbooked*.  It was sold out.  There is a big difference.  The law sees a difference and requires the carrier to proceed a certain way.  United did not do the right thing even under that circumstance.  The law specifically states $1000, not $800 in vouchers.  The law only mentions compensating the passenger for a voluntary inconvience, not assaulting a man because he is already on the plane.

----------


## juleswin

> The doctor was in a seat he bought and paid for with the understanding he would be a passenger to Louisville.  He was on time, in his seat, luggage properly stowed.  He was not the problem.  United broke the law, because the plane was not overbooked.  It was sold out.    Every seat was full.  The law is very specific on this point.  The problem was United expected paying passengers to get off the plane in favor of United employees who were needed in Louisville the next day.  The crew should have been driven to Louisville.  Shoot, the airport has rentals.  No inconvenience at all.  Certainly no law enforcement on the plane, no blood (a biohazard which has to be cleaned up immediately to federal standards), and everyone goes to Louisville as planned.
> 
> The next day the CEO of United Airlines sent out an email and commented to the media that the doctor was disruptive.  He was not.  So now the doctor's entire history is out there on the internet because of some very stupid decisions on behalf of United Airlines.  
> 
> I'm sure the good doctor will not be flying with United any more.  He may own the airline after this, and good for him.


Just so you know boarding process is not complete up until the doors to the plane are close. Getting a sit, storing your luggage is no guarantee that you would be flying on that plane. 

And the doctor winning any lawsuit against United is wishful thinking. He would be lucky if United shows mercy and doesn't sue his sorry behind.

----------


## Danke

> The doctor was in a seat he bought and paid for with the understanding he would be a passenger to Louisville.  He was on time, in his seat, luggage properly stowed.  He was not the problem.  United broke the law, because the plane was not overbooked.  It was sold out.    Every seat was full.  The law is very specific on this point.  The problem was United expected paying passengers to get off the plane in favor of United employees who were needed in Louisville the next day.  The crew should have been driven to Louisville.  Shoot, the airport has rentals.  No inconvenience at all.  Certainly no law enforcement on the plane, no blood (a biohazard which has to be cleaned up immediately to federal standards), and everyone goes to Louisville as planned.
> 
> The next day the CEO of United Airlines sent out an email and commented to the media that the doctor was disruptive.  He was not.  So now the doctor's entire history is out there on the internet because of some very stupid decisions on behalf of United Airlines.  
> 
> I'm sure the good doctor will not be flying with United any more.  He may own the airline after this, and good for him.


the crews definitely won't be driving themselves.  By the time Republic Airlines arranged a Limo or van, it would probably be departing at 10pm at the earliest.  So arrival at KSDF would be around 4am.   They had to fly that morning.   Not gonna happen, as explained earlier.

----------


## juleswin

> You people keep saying the flight was overbooked.  There is federal law covering what happens in the case of overbooking, but it does not involve dragging an elderly doctor off a plane.  It involves paying money to unboarded passengers for the next flight or lodging, or whatever.
> 
> *This flight was not overbooked*.  It was sold out.  There is a big difference.  The law sees a difference and requires the carrier to proceed a certain way.  United did not do the right thing even under that circumstance.  The law specifically states $1000, not $800 in vouchers.  The law only mentions compensating the passenger for a voluntary inconvience, not assaulting a man because he is already on the plane.


Overbooked simply means that they had more tickets than sits available on the plane and in this case they were overbooked. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Actually the law says that they can offer up to 1350 per flight per person not that they must pay $1350 for a flight. This is another reason why I disagree with "it is the govt's fault excuse". The fact that they weren't even willing to pay the govt maximum tell me that big govt gets a pass this time around.

----------


## Jan2017

*United 'clarifies' that Flight 3411 was not oversold
*After initially saying the situation resulted from an overbooked flight, United is making a “clarification" 
to say that Flight 3411 was sold out -- but not overbooked.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...old/100331782/

----------


## Schifference

I am certain the clarification is in United's best interest and advised to say so by legal team.

----------


## Madison320

> No, no, no!  That is NOT the reason why we are having this conversation.  If that's all it was, it wouldn't even merit a comment.
> 
> No, it became an issue when the airline resorted to violence to enforce their contract because they thought they were in the right.  They may have been right - and they have every right to sue for their damages.  If he cost them money, they have a right to get it back if it's in their contract with him.  But they do NOT have the right to initiate violence against someone who is not being violent!  Why are you not getting this?!  A contract does not give you the right to initiate violence.
> 
> If it did, then the next time you hire a mechanic to work on your car, if you're dissatisfied with his work, does he have the right to use force to rob you?  No.  Because it's not a crime, it's a tort!!!!


If someone refuses to leave your home, can you forcibly remove him?

I posted this earlier:

Suppose you have your own car service to compete with Uber. You offer rides to people that live nearby at a discount with an agreement that if there's an emergency, and you need your car, you'll refund the ticket. At the time you need to give someone a ride that they reserved, your wife slips in the shower and is unconscious. You call your neighbor and tell him his ride is cancelled, there's an emergency. You carry her to the car to take her to the hospital only to find your neighbor sitting in your car waiting to be taken for his reserved ride. You tell him he needs to get out. He refuses. You try to pull him out of the car but he grabs onto the seat so you whack him over the head, and drag him out of the car. Was your action justified?

----------


## Madison320

> Just think of what he said in the bolded part of the article for a second. If the reason for the call is not a crime, the police should leave. Forget that the police sometimes assists citizens with first aid care, helps find your missing cat etc. In this case, the police were called because the* customer was trespassing on the airlines property*. Just because someone is sitting and looking all innocent doesn't mean a crime is not being committed.
> 
> I swear to God, the Judge hasn't been the same since Trump came on the scene. He has been slipping lately.


Exactly.

----------


## Madison320

> Ah, the "trespassing" excuse for violence.  Once again you lose.  Because they _let_ him on the plane.  See above for the ways to resolve this without violence.  If they would have prevented him from boarding in the first place and he forced his way onto the plane, then HE would be the initiator of violence.  But that's not what happened.  By your own standard, this was a contract dispute.  Neither party has a right to commit violence to enforce their position in the dispute no matter how much they deem themselves to be in the right.


The permission to be on the plane is not permanent.

----------


## juleswin

> If someone refuses to leave your home, can you forcibly remove him?
> 
> I posted this earlier:
> 
> Suppose you have your own car service to compete with Uber. You offer rides to people that live nearby at a discount with an agreement that if there's an emergency, and you need your car, you'll refund the ticket. At the time you need to give someone a ride that they reserved, your wife slips in the shower and is unconscious. You call your neighbor and tell him his ride is cancelled, there's an emergency. You carry her to the car to take her to the hospital only to find your neighbor sitting in your car waiting to be taken for his reserved ride. You tell him he needs to get out. He refuses. You try to pull him out of the car but he grabs onto the seat so you whack him over the head, and drag him out of the car. Was your action justified?


Its a contract dispute, you should take him to his destination and then sue him later on. That or you should have made extra extra arrangement for what to do if your wife has a medical emergency. The fact that you made a provision for it in your contract is not enough. Everybody knows that.

/s

Seriously, can someone please answer his question?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Suppose you have your own car service to compete with Uber. You offer rides to people that live nearby at a discount with an agreement that if there's an emergency, and you need your car, you'll refund the ticket. At the time you need to give someone a ride that they reserved, your wife slips in the shower and is unconscious. You call your neighbor and tell him his ride is cancelled, there's an emergency. You carry her to the car to take her to the hospital only to find your neighbor sitting in your car waiting to be taken for his reserved ride. You tell him he needs to get out. He refuses. You try to pull him out of the car but he grabs onto the seat so you whack him over the head, and drag him out of the car. Was your action justified?


Ok, but you missed the point!  You told him not to get in!  In other words, you stopped him at the gate.  And there are other reasons why the analogy doesn't fit, but let's play along...

This situation would be more akin to the guy being in the back seat of your company taxi ready to go while you're fixing your mirrors and your wife says she needs to get to work.  You can tell the guy to get out, you can offer to make it up to him through cash payment, you can come to some other agreement, or you can tell him that you will sue him for the damages incurred because your wife can't get to work.  You don't use violence to enforce a contract.  You use the tort system.

----------


## Jan2017

fwiw, UAL down over 1% for second straight day . . .

(15 mins before close)
*UAL* 
*$69.86  -**0.85 -**1.2%

*Volume about double the moving average of usual daily volume . . . they _are_ selling . . . get a bargain -lol

Today's volume : 7,602,366 shares
90 Day Avg. Daily Volume :  3,767,323 shares

----------


## Madison320

> Ok, but you missed the point!  You told him not to get in!  In other words, you stopped him at the gate.  And there are other reasons why the analogy doesn't fit, but let's play along...
> 
> This situation would be more akin to the guy being in the back seat of your company taxi ready to go while you're fixing your mirrors and your wife says she needs to get to work.  You can tell the guy to get out, you can offer to make it up to him through cash payment, you can come to some other agreement, or you can tell him that you will sue him for the damages incurred because your wife can't get to work.  You don't use violence to enforce a contract.  You use the tort system.


What if while I'm fixing my mirrors my pregnant wife comes running out and says the baby is coming out now? If the rider refuses to get out it's trespassing.

On top of that it's up to ME to determine whether it's an emergency, not the guy getting bumped. My guess is that the airline can basically refuse service and remove you from their property at their discretion, for any reason. Just like you reserve the right to remove a guest from your home.

----------


## phill4paul

> What if while I'm fixing my mirrors my pregnant wife comes running out and says the baby is coming out now? If the rider refuses to get out it's trespassing.
> 
> On top of that it's up to ME to determine whether it's an emergency, not the guy getting bumped.


  They have ambulances for that. If you can't run a business without a billion caveats against the consumer just work for someone else. Eventually your ride business would suffer from bad business practices, you'd get low customer service mark and you would go out of business anyway.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*The United Airlines Incident Does Not Require New Laws, Despite What Chris Christie Says. It Could Have Been Resolved by Intelligent Use of Markets.*

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/12/th...es-not-re#fold

The beaten-up Dao does not seem to have violated any contractual term that would give United the right to have him violently removed.

Brian Doherty|Apr. 12, 2017 1:45 pm

Predictably, America's least popular governor, Chris Christie of New Jersey, approaches the national conversation generated by Chicago aviation police beating up and dragging Dr. David Dao off a United Airlines flight on Sunday by demanding more legal action.

Christie, a Republican, is calling for quick federal action to ban the process of "overbooking," that is, selling more seats on an airplane than there are physically available.

As a post here explained the other day, a libertarian-leaning economist, the late Julian Simon, invented and policy-entrepreneured into existence a wonderful price-system, free-market model for solving the problem of overbooking.

Here's how it usually works: the airline starts offering monetary incentives (could be flight vouchers or cash or other considerations) to get enough customers to voluntarily give up their seat, increasing the offered price until the market for seats has cleared, that is, you've found enough people to give up the seat they paid for.

That way everyone is happy, either with their seat or with payment that the person considers sufficient to make up for losing the seat.

My criticisms of United and the police in this incident are not based on general hostility to overbooking, which both makes great economic sense for the airlines, almost certainly makes ticket prices less than they otherwise would be for customers, and creates win-win scenarios for airlines and passengers when the airline is smart enough to actually carry through the Simon policy to a market-clearing result.

In the case of this United flight from which Dao was violently ejected, by all accounts United tried two rounds of offers, and after $800 decided to start busting heads.

*There is zero reason to believe that quick increases in the price offered to voluntarily abandon your seat would not have resolved this situation far more quickly and justly than calling the cops on Dao. (And, almost certainly after all the dings in the market and possibly the courts ahead for United, it all would have been far less costly for United as well.)*

Free market types are understandably attracted to explanations for seemingly idiotic or perverse behavior on the part of companies that blame government. In the conversation surrounding this United debacle, I've seen many people excited about a Department of Transportation regulation that sets a cap on the airlines legal *obligation* to pay off those bumped from an overbooked flight:

*    Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight*.

But that has no application to United's bad decisions in the case of Dao's abuse. (Remember, the police's equally bad decisions were triggered by United's bad decision; while the cops should have been more curious about why they were asked to commit violence against Dao, they did so because the airline decided to treat him as an intruder on their property for no good reason, when what he was was a paying customer.)

*First, by all reports United didn't even reach their regulatory obligation to offer as much as $1,350 as an incentive. (I am discounting as extremely unlikely any possibility that no one on that plane paid more than $200 for a seat, though if that were so they would have met the obligation by offering 400 percent of that.)*

*Second, despite how some want to interpret it, nothing in that regulation says it is illegal to offer more as compensation. It is not written as a price ceiling. It merely says the airlines' legally ordered obligation to the bumped will thus be met. Nor have I seen anyone point to any case law that seems to complicate my read of what the regulation actually says.*

*So, contra Christie, United had available to it a very sensible and almost certain to work free-market option to solve this problem of the truculent Dr. Dao. No overreaching federal action to ban overbooking is needed, and it would not be to the benefit of the flying public if it were enacted.*

Since first excoriating both United's application of policy and the police's blithely going along with United's demands, I've heard both directly and indirectly many arguments insisting that mine was a dead wrong position for a libertarian to take, for various reasons, which I'd like to try to address here.

*I'm not a contract lawyer with long experience litigating cases related to United's contract of carriage, but I have read it, and have not encountered any argument against my positions here that seem to be informed by such long experience litigating this contract.

But I can read English. Underlying the following arguments is the belief that the contract doesn't make sense on its face without a background understanding that in general, having paid for a service gives you the right to receive that service, unless contradicted by either the contract specifically or some larger or more important principle. And I don't see how that's the case here.

First, United's contract of carriage certainly does give them many rights to boot passengers when it comes to an overbooking situation. (While I am not at all confident this point is dispositive, there is some question as to whether the flight even truly qualified as "overbooked" by contract definition because the extras were crew.)

But the key recourse United has by its contract regarding bumping passengers uses the language "denied boarding."

Dr. Dao was not denied boarding. He was permitted to board. They ejected him after he had boarded. So that doesn't apply.*

If you argue this is being unfairly niggling to the letter of the law as opposed to its spirit, I'd argue that any attempt to welsh on the background obligation to deliver the service you sold by nature relies on niggling letter of the law as opposed to its spirit.

If United or its apologists want to hew to letter of contract rather than commonsense background understanding of commercial transactions (whereby purchasing the service means you get the service), then hew to the letter of contract. By which, nothing about United's right to deny boarding has anything to do with what happened to Dao.

I've also seen United apologists scramble to say, well, "boarding" means something different than just "getting on board," but rather is some ongoing process until the plane is in the air.

*This contract takes lots of times to give special legal term of art definitions for 68 distinct terms, and does not bother to do so for "boarding." As a jurist I'd be inclined to treat the word in its standard English definition, by which Dao was not "denied boarding" but rather violently ejected from his paid-for seat. It may be that "boarding" as an overall process is continuous until flight. But Dao was not "denied" his part in that process, but had indeed already boarded.*

United has other contractual recourse to boot people as well beyond overbooking, under its Rule 21. But do they apply to this situation? Not to my read.

First, I think it would be grossly unfair to rely on Point B, "government or airport security directive of any sort," since in Dao's case the directive came at United's order. That would be an absurd escape clause, to say "well if we ask security to boot you for any reason, that is by definition contractual."

The only other possibly applicable line is the catchall under Point H, which reads: "Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to..."

That does say "not limited to." But every reason listed is supposed to be connected to "safety." There was nothing safety-related in the order to Dao. It was about the airline's convenience in moving its crew. (Yes, failure to get the crew to its next flight in a legally required manner would inconvenience more people than Dao. But if your argument is based on a rough and ready "quick assessment of greatest good for greatest number" consideration, then your attitude should be not that Dao should have been beaten up but again, that United should have offered more incentive to find willing volunteers.)

So I see no reason any reasonable jurist would consider that catchall related to "safety" as justifying United's ordering of Dao's physical removal.

United does makes an extracontractual claim on its website outside the actual text of the contract which is basically a nullifying clause, that "United Carrier reserves the right to...change or modify any of its conditions of contract with or without notice to ticketed passengers."

*I'd be interested in seeing if the claim "well, we said outside the contract that the contract is utterly meaningless and we can do whatever we want" might hold up in a court of law. It does not arise to any standard of justice I think applicable to a case of a violent beating and physical removal.*

Within the contract itself, the reference to United unilaterally changing terms of the deal says "UA's conditions of carriage, rules and tariffs are subject to change without notice, provided that no such change shall apply to Tickets issued prior to the effective date of such change." That does not apply to this situation, in which Dao's ticket was issued prior to their decision to physically remove him.

To my read of the contract, any attempt to rely on some sort of strict contractarianism beyond commonsense commercial obligations and human decency to defend United or the police in the case of Dao's beating fails.

*And even if you were 100 percent certain that Dao in fact was the one acting outside his obligations under this contract, which again seems untenable for all the reasons above, I see no reason why the more standard contractual solution of "sue for damages" should not be the fallback, as opposed to "one party is so sure they are right about the contract they are going to have the other party, rightly, beaten up."

And thankfully, United seems to agree that the use of police to remove paying customers is bad policy.*

----------


## timosman



----------


## osan

> SO. WHAT.


History is not wholly invalid.  In this case, it suggests there may be more to the story than is being reported.




> The man's past was brought up to make the airline actions look legit.


That is a very big assumption.  It may be true.  It may not be true.  

You cannot have passengers behaving like barbarians aboard the aircraft.  So when they do, what is the airline to do?  Shall the cabin crew escort a violent passenger off the plane?  The cockpit crew?  Perhaps the pilot should just come out with his pistol and take care of business?

The airlines are by no means to blame for the $#@!ty behavior of the police.  Police are their only real option in such matters.  This is a case of Mr. Rock being introduced to Mr. Hardplace.

The conditions of the ticket contract are clear, if set into tiny type.  When you buy a ticket, you agree to the terms and conditions.  You have no basis for acting out when a contractually valid circumstance arises that is not to your liking.  _Right?_




> If every time someone was abused by the state their past was brought up, everyone would be in a crap-hole.


OK.  So, someone breaks into my house at 2 AM and I apprehend him, rather than kill.  Now what?  If I call the police to have him hauled away, by your apparent logic, as well as that of a few others here that I have seen, I am to blame for any harm that comes to Mr. B. Urglar at the hands of the cops.  Please tell me you see just how hopping crazy that is.  Lie if you must.  Or would it be your contention that _I_ should dispense justice?  Perhaps I should jail him in my basement?  But then I have to feed him and hazard the risk of being caught and going to prison for life on a kidnapping conviction.

I ask once more: what ought United have done with a passenger contractually obliged to exit the aircraft, but refusing to do so?

----------


## timosman

> I ask once more: what ought United have done with a passenger contractually obliged to exit the aircraft, but refusing to do so?


They should study more how did they got themselves in that situation and try to avoid it in the future. In the meantime they could put another plane, have everybody except for the "troublemaker" deplane and then hit him with a million dollar lawsuit.

----------


## juleswin

> But the key recourse United has by its contract regarding bumping passengers uses the language "denied boarding."
> 
> Dr. Dao was not denied boarding. He was permitted to board. They ejected him after he had boarded. So that doesn't apply.





> As a jurist I'd be inclined to treat the word in its standard English definition, by which Dao was not "denied boarding" but rather violently ejected from his paid-for seat. *It may be that "boarding" as an overall process is continuous until flight*


It is not maybe

The boarding process doesn't end when you enter the plane and taken a sit, it ends when the door is shut and you are rolling down the tarmac. If you are denied from completing the boarding process you are denied boarding the plane. This is not semantics, it is reality. Boarding process, then departure one ends when the other begins.

So he was denied boarding the moment he was kicked off the plane before the doors shut. This is why articles talking about this story make sure to remind you the doors haven't been shut before he was told to move.

----------


## timosman



----------


## Danke

> They should study more how did they got themselves in that situation and try to avoid it in the future. In the meantime they could put another plane, have everybody except for the "troublemaker" deplane and then hit him with a million dollar lawsuit.


Brilliant!

----------


## Madison320

> They have ambulances for that. If you can't run a business without a billion caveats against the consumer just work for someone else. Eventually your ride business would suffer from bad business practices, you'd get low customer service mark and you would go out of business anyway.


I agree. Let the free market decide. The only disagreement I would have is if you want the airline to pay the guy damages.

----------


## Jan2017

> You cannot have passengers behaving like barbarians aboard the aircraft.  So when they do, what is the airline to do? 
>  Shall the cabin crew escort a violent passenger off the plane?  The cockpit crew? . . .


No, call the police. And in this instance, also hope that two different cameras didn't get a chance to video record what
 UAL will at first call a "belligerent" passenger.

Then, after the video has already gone viral . . . especially in Asia . . . then, the airlines actively goes around (to try) to get the youtubes banned.

Next United move I presume will be to (again try) to get _their_ jury picked. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zgbMIiPTS4

----------


## CaptUSA

> What if while I'm fixing my mirrors my pregnant wife comes running out and says the baby is coming out now? If the rider refuses to get out it's trespassing.
> 
> On top of that it's up to ME to determine whether it's an emergency, not the guy getting bumped. My guess is that the airline can basically refuse service and remove you from their property at their discretion, for any reason. Just like you reserve the right to remove a guest from your home.


You're trying to force this into an analogy that supports your argument.  It's not working.  There was no pregnant wife emergency. There was no personal vehicle.  Let me state this again...  You cannot use violence to enforce a contract. This guy was not committing a crime. It is a civil tort matter.  If you bring violence into it, you are in the wrong.

----------


## Ender

> *The United Airlines Incident Does Not Require New Laws, Despite What Chris Christie Says. It Could Have Been Resolved by Intelligent Use of Markets.*
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/12/th...es-not-re#fold
> 
> The beaten-up Dao does not seem to have violated any contractual term that would give United the right to have him violently removed.
> 
> Brian Doherty|Apr. 12, 2017 1:45 pm
> 
> Predictably, America's least popular governor, Chris Christie of New Jersey, approaches the national conversation generated by Chicago aviation police beating up and dragging Dr. David Dao off a United Airlines flight on Sunday by demanding more legal action.
> ...


*^^THIS^^*

----------


## osan

> I didn't read the contract, but unless it states that he could be forcibly removed once seated, then their response was NOT part of the contract.


Ticket contracts typically make clear that you may lose your seat for any of a number of reasons, including overbooking.

When you pay, you agree to it.  If you refuse to disembark, you are in breach and I see no problem with forcible removal.  It sucks, mind you, but it is still valid.




> They may be correct that there's language in the contract that he could possibly be bumped.  But if they let him on the plane, that's their fault.


Possibly.  It would depend on the wording of the relevant stipulations.  I suspect they cover this, in which case it is not their fault insofar as contractual obligation goes.  Is it a $#@!ty policy?  Perhaps.  I've been bumped once or maybe twice and it wasn't fun, but I didn't lose an arm because of it.




> They may win the court case against him and recoup their losses through the tort system, but they should NOT commit violence against him!


If by "they" you mean the police, I agree completely.  It you mean the airline, I cannot agree unless it could be shown that someone from United gave the order to teach the passenger a lesson, or that United had some sort of secret agreement with police to the same effect.




> Likewise, if they barred him from entry onto the plane, he should NOT force his way on, even if he had a proper ticket.


Agreed.




> That's what torts are for!!!  Contracts are not permission to commit violence - unless it specifically states in the contract that violent actions may result.


It is a long mile between what has been reported and this.  Still, it might be the case and I would see United hanging by their testes for it.  Otherwise, I see no culpability there.  They exercised a contractual right and the passenger refused to comply.  What were they to do, kiss him and give gaysex?




> You know, I'm surprised so many "liberty" people aren't understanding this.  If they really had concerns, there were several ways to prevent this.  First, don't board the plane *until you are sure how many seats there are*.


It is not possible to know.  You cannot know for certain until the plane is boarded up and the count made.  It is not uncommon for people who have checked in to change plans and not board the aircraft.  It happens all the time.  People check in at home.  Some sit in the bar and drink themselves stupid and miss the flight.   All manner of people who technically should be on the aircraft never show up.  It is only when the aircraft has been filled that the ground crew can say with certainty what is available.




> Well, damn, that *seems* easy enough.


Only to those who are not familiar with operations.




> Second, they can keep raising the price of the compensation until enough passengers take it (this is what they usually do).


And that is what they did, starting at $400 and going to $800.  How far should they go, past the point they lose money on the flight?  Come now, you know that makes no sense whatsoever.  Drive them out of business and NOBODY will be flying.  Then what?




> If the price gets too high, the airlines will find a cheaper way to shift around their resources.


As if things were that easy, the tacit presumption here being that those considerations are not already statistically optimized.  I've never designed systems for airline operations, but have done so in other sectors that are essentially the same.  The use of very powerful statistical models to solve in real time problems such as that of the traveling salesman is boilerplate in many industries because we live in an age where not having such means at hand will put you out of business in no time at all.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, small losses in efficiency can bury a business in short order.  They seem innocuous and inconsequential... that is, until you are in Chapter 11.  I cannot stress this strongly enough.  Today's computerized operations have taken business practice to places few people have imagined beforehand.  I saw it because I was a computer research scientist, fairly well versed in the theoretics of the various disciplinary areas and had among my specialties hidden-cost analysis.  I have seen with greater clarity than most even in my former business just how much $$ is lost in dribs and drabs.  I've saved companies tens and hundreds of millions of dollars per year just by reengineering basic business processes.  A minute here, thirty seconds there on the phone with customers, for example, can make a lot of money NOT leak from the corporate coffers.  It's the nature of things these days.




> Lastly, if they want to really pressure someone, they'll tell him he is in breach of contract and his refusal will end up costing him thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and reparations


Yes, they could.  But is it the best approach?  There is the PR angle to consider.  Airline is between a rock and a hard place on this one and if they aim to remain in business, they must impose these conditions on their customers.  Were it not so, I assure you someone in the marketing department of one of the airlines would have long ago said, "hey, how about we guarantee seating?  That should give us huge market share!"




> *But they DON'T get to violently enforce a contract!*


They didn't.  Of that I am 99.99% certain.  I cannot imagine the gate agent instructed the police to work him over, but good.

Also, the ONLY time the aircraft crew is allowed BY LAW to touch the passenger in such an instance is when the plane is in flight.  When on the ground, DOT police MUST BE CALLED.  The crew are _forbidden by law_ from taking a passenger into custody in such cases.  I'm sorry, but United is wholly and completely blameless in this matter.

Here is another perspective on the matter:  viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com

----------


## Madison320

> You're trying to force this into an analogy that supports your argument.  It's not working.  There was no pregnant wife emergency. There was no personal vehicle.  Let me state this again...  You cannot use violence to enforce a contract. This guy was not committing a crime. It is a civil tort matter.  If you bring violence into it, you are in the wrong.


No. It was trespassing. You can use violence to remove a trespasser. The trespasser initiated the violence.

Obviously this assumes the airline didn't beat the crap out of the guy for no reason. They can only use enough force to get the guy off the plane. Just like if you asked someone to leave your property and they refused. You can't kill the guy, just drag him off your property.

----------


## otherone

> You're trying to force this into an analogy that supports your argument.  It's not working.  There was no pregnant wife emergency. There was no personal vehicle.  Let me state this again...  You cannot use violence to enforce a contract. This guy was not committing a crime. It is a civil tort matter.  _If you bring violence into it, you are in the wrong_.


Actually, you've committed a crime, whether you're a small business or publicly traded.  It's called "assault and battery".

----------


## Schifference

If it is ruled that United did nothing wrong, airlines will applaud and passengers will comply with requests to disembark.

----------


## osan

> A sure sign of a police state is the smothering overlay of laws and rules that are incomprehensible to any sane man.


Completely agree, but let us bear in mind that that which an airline might do that has this appearance is probably a product made in response to the insane compulsory regulations foisted upon them by the police state and not the result of a cabal of board members who get hard-ons at the thought of making the lives of their customers miserable.  I've worked with a lot of F50 companies and believe you me, they are not evil people.  Very much the opposite.  It is the regulatory state that imposes the conditions that give rise to this sort of crap.  Blaming the airlines is unjust and plainly a mistake.




> Contract law that can end up with cops being called on you, which is everything and everyday in AmeriKa, is just as bad, if it is written at such length and stilted legalese as to be incomprehensible.


And again, why is that?  It is because of the morbid legal environment.  Who really thinks that a business actually _wants_ to embroil themselves in such extraneous nonsense?  They do it because either they are forced to do it by explicit mandate, or because they must in order to protect themselves in a tort system that is way broken.




> Ever sit down and read a car rental contract from cover to cover?


I've read all manner of such contracts, including the EULAs for all manner of software packages.  Have had to do this for clients, that they not fall victim to some unscrupulous vendor.  Paid well but was boring and tended to make my head hurt before very long.  Doing exhaustive analysis on such documents is not trivial work.  I often recommended they let me draft a EULA equivalent contract to replace or augment the standard EULA and tell the vendor that if they want our $40 million, they will agree to our terms and conditions.  It worked more often than it didn't.  A lot more often in my case because I always wrote completely, clearly, correctly, and with perfect honesty.  The vendors wanted the money more than they wanted to be "on top".




> "It" being the staggering number, complexity and contradictory nature of the millions and millions of laws, codes, statutes, edicts, mandates, regulations, ordinances, _fatwas_, rules, proclamations and orders that we are expected to know and comply with fully, every single day.


And it is all the sausage of state, which we are all forced to eat under literal pain of death.

Blaming businesses for the tyranny of the "state" is not, on the average, just and proper.

----------


## Madison320

> Actually, you've committed a crime, whether you're a small business or publicly traded.  It's called "assault and battery".


If someone was trespassing on YOUR property my guess it you'd feel justified in using force to remove him.

----------


## osan

> They should study more how did they got themselves in that situation and try to avoid it in the future.


Your answer tacitly assumes that they have not.  I'd bet money I do not have that it is not the case.  My confidence of winning that bet is very high.




> In the meantime they could put another plane, have everybody except for the "troublemaker" deplane and then hit him with a million dollar lawsuit.


You think airlines can just pull aircraft out of their bootholes just like that?  Allow me to disabuse you of that grossly mistaken assumption.  Firstly, passenger aircraft are hella costly.  If they are not in the air, full of people and cargo, they are hemorrhaging capital.  Airlines typically have very few "spare" aircraft.  The only real reason for a plane to be on the ground is when they are being maintained or repaired.  Otherwise, they are flying to pay their mortgages.  Small airlines have virtually no extra aircraft kept idle.  Large airlines like United _might_ have half a percent, if that.  When an aircraft goes out of service unexpectedly, as often as not the flight is cancelled because there is no replacement hardware available.  Grounded aircraft are liabilities.  BIG ones.

----------


## phill4paul

> If someone was trespassing on YOUR property my guess it you'd feel justified in using force to remove him.


  I don't sell tickets to my property. So, yeah, I feel justified in physically ejecting anyone I damn well please. It's that selling the ticket thingy for access that get's you in trouble.

----------


## dannno

> I don't sell tickets to my property. So, yeah, I feel justified in physically ejecting anyone I damn well please. It's that selling the ticket thingy for access that get's you in trouble.


Ya, except the ticket says they can forcibly remove you.

----------


## juleswin

> I don't sell tickets to my property. So, yeah, I feel justified in physically ejecting anyone I damn well please. It's that selling the ticket thingy for access that get's you in trouble.


What part of the fact that the ticket is conditional don't you people not understand? It is not guaranteed

----------


## phill4paul

> Ya, except the ticket says they can forcibly remove you.


  Do we have a copy of the contract? If it states that then it is what it is. You won't personally catch me in one of these hellholes, so I'm not exactly married to this story. "Meh" might be stating my position too forcefully.

----------


## phill4paul

Ah, well here is the contract....




> RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
> UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
> 
> Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
> 
> Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
> 
> Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
> 
> ...


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec21

   I see nothing that they may refuse carriage do to employee transportation needs.

----------


## phill4paul

Ah, perhaps it is in this section....




> RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
> Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:
> 
> Request for Volunteers
> UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate). The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value. If a Passenger is asked to volunteer, UA will not later deny boarding to that Passenger involuntarily unless that Passenger was informed at the time he was asked to volunteer that there was a possibility of being denied boarding involuntarily and of the amount of compensation to which he/she would have been entitled in that event. The request for volunteers and the selection of such person to be denied space will be in a manner determined solely by UA.
> 
> Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
> 
> Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
> ...


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec21

  Well that section only deals with Oversold flights. It says nothing about company employees bumping passengers. I think his liaryer will get him a nice fat settlement. And expect changes to their contract.

----------


## phill4paul

> What part of the fact that the ticket is conditional don't you people not understand? It is not guaranteed


  There are conditions and there are "conditions." I've posted the contract. A liaryer could easily win. The airline will settle out of court on this one and then change their contract.

----------


## juleswin

You people made me do this but lets see what federal laws says about getting in the way of airline employees



> An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
> (Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

The man is looking at 20 yrs in federal pen for not reading the contract that came with his ticket. Essential, this law makes the airline employees right 100% of the time. They can do no wrong and when they tell you to move, your reply should be "how far?"

Considering what I am seeing in the so called liberty websites, I think the private corporation would decide to settle on the count of PC culture alone beating them down. Running a high competitive, low profit margin business in this climate must be hell. God help these people

----------


## juleswin

> Ah, perhaps it is in this section....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec21
> 
>   Well that section only deals with Oversold flights. It says nothing about company employees bumping passengers. I think his liaryer will get him a nice fat settlement. And expect changes to their contract.


The airlines actually sell tickets to their employees to board the plane. The fact that they are free doesn't mean that they are not being sold or they are not tickets. Oversold, overbooked or whatever you wanna call it, it is covered under the rules. The ruthless lawyers that come up with these contracts make sure the arses of their client is covered. 

The only court that they lose this case is in the court of public opinion.

----------


## Jan2017

> There are conditions and there are "conditions." I've posted the contract. A liaryer could easily win. The airline will settle out of court on this one and then change their contract.


Slandered doctor guy will/should hire a real trial lawyer - 
the attempts at character assassination make United Airlines- Continental Holdings (stock ticker UAL) look even worse, 
as his confidential personal issues were exposed why (?)

CBOE traders/players too can exploit the equity options market by going short.

Plenty of witnesses onboard and the two cell phone videos . . .
trial lawyers take it to the max with a full trial until United shareholders do the slow blood-letting, day-by-day trickle for years.

There is no reason for the passanger doctor victim to _ever_ settle out-of-court on this one.

----------


## phill4paul

> You people made me do this but lets see what federal laws says about getting in the way of airline employees
> 
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504
> 
> The man is looking at 20 yrs in federal pen for not reading the contract that came with his ticket. Essential, this law makes the airline employees right 100% of the time. They can do no wrong and when they tell you to move, your reply should be "how far?"
> 
> Considering what I am seeing in the so called liberty websites, I think the private corporation would decide to settle on the count of PC culture alone beating them down. Running a high competitive, low profit margin business in this climate must be hell. God help these people


  Made you do what? You are confusing Federal law with contract law. As far as the Federal law I did not see him intimidate or assault anyone. He just refused to give up his seat.

----------


## phill4paul

> The airlines actually sell tickets to their employees to board the plane. The fact that they are free doesn't mean that they are not being sold or they are not tickets. Oversold, overbooked or whatever you wanna call it, it is covered under the rules. The ruthless lawyers that come up with these contracts make sure the arses of their client is covered. 
> 
> The only court that they lose this case is in the court of public opinion.


  Meh, like I said, the contract is not thorough enough in regards to airline employees. Enough that another liaryer could make a case of it. And likely will.

----------


## phill4paul

> Slandered doctor guy will/should hire a real trial lawyer - 
> the attempts at character assassination make United Airlines- Continental Holdings (stock ticker UAL) look even worse, 
> as his personal issues were exposed why (?)
> 
> CBOE traders/players too can exploit the equity options market by going short.
> 
> Plenty of witnesses onboard and the two cell phone videos . . .
> trial lawyers take it to the max with a full trial until United shareholders do the slow blood-letting..
> 
> There is no reason for the passanger doctor victim to _ever_ settle out-of-court on this one.


  He's got two. One a personal injury lairyer, the other a corporate liaryer. 

http://www.newsmax.com/us/united-air.../11/id/783868/

  I don't think the airlines will want a trial. They are already taking a hit and to open the wound fresh in another couple of years won't be in their interest.

----------


## juleswin

> Made you do what? You are confusing Federal law with contract law. As far as the Federal law I did not see him intimidate or assault anyone. He just refused to give up his seat.


Maybe a lawyer here can correct me on this but I was under the impression that federal law supercedes contract law but I could be wrong. I still think he broke federal law by violating the law I posted above. See, all you have to do to violate the law is to do any of these acts

- by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, 
- *interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or*
- lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or 
- attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18

According to my understanding he interfered with the duties of the attendant who was trying to kick him off the plane by refusing to leave. Also, one could say he also intimidated them in the process. You see, words like intimidate is a weasel word that means nothing and everything at the same time. They essentially put it there as a get out of jail free card to the employees. In fact, I can say that you intimidated me by back talking to me and the courts would accept it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*That Lucky Doctor Who Got Kicked Off that United Airlines Flight*

Thomas DiLorenzo	

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...rlines-flight/

Darn.  Why couldn’t that happen to me.  That doctor who was beaten bloody and knocked unconscious before being dragged off an airplane like a hogtied cow on his way to being branded by the Chicago police is about to become a very wealthy man.  Logic suggests that he will sue United Airlines, the Chicago Police Department, O’Hare Airport, all the flight attendants and the two pilots, and the gate agent, for starters.  All of them conspired to brutalize him for objecting to their unilateral reneging on his contract with United Airlines.  They decided that calling in the Chicago cops to beat him to a bloody, unconscious pulp was cheaper than offering him (or anyone else on the flight) an extra few hundred bucks for his seat.

*If you would like to know what daily life was like in say Bulgaria, Romania, or the Soviet Union itself in the 50s an 60s, just book a flight on any American airline.  They will ask you for your papers, frisk you, maybe even force you to strip naked for an anal search, while someone constantly shouts directions in your face:  “Empty your pockets!  No belts! No shoes!  No liquids!  Shut up and move!  Stand right here!  Hold your arms out while I grope you!  Get in line!  Put your bags over here!  Take off that coat!  No sweaters!  Hold your hair up, lady! I’m going to put my hands in your pants!  Spread your legs!  Are you wearing a wired bra?!  What’s that medication in your luggage?!  Stop and let the German Shepherd sniff you!   Hold your hands out!   Stand here!”*

*Then, once on the plane, you are treated like an imbecilic child with loud speakers broadcasting government-mandated instructions on how to buckle a seatbelt and read an “exit” sign.  “Push that bag in!  No bags in the front row!  Turn that device off!  No phones!  Read these emergency instructions!  Put that dog under the seat in front of you!  Someone may trip over him if we crash!”*

On second thought, I doubt that even the East German Stasi were that annoying.

Meanwhile, the Lunatic Left will blame the incident on Donald Trump.  He encourages the mistreatment of non-whites, they will say.  Since much of America has become a society of morons, millions of people will believe this.

“Fly the friendly skies . . . . of United . . . . . . “

----------


## phill4paul

> Maybe a lawyer here can correct me on this but I was under the impression that federal law supercedes contract law but I could be wrong. I still think he broke federal law by violating the law I posted above. See, all you have to do to violate the law is to do any of these acts
> 
> - by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, 
> - *interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or*
> - lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or 
> - attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18
> 
> According to my understanding he interfered with the duties of the attendant who was trying to kick him off the plane by refusing to leave. Also, one could say he also intimidated them in the process. You see, words like intimidate is a weasel word that means nothing and everything at the same time. They essentially put it there as a get out of jail free card to the employees. In fact, I can say that you intimidated me by back talking to me and the courts would accept it.


  No. simple interference can only draw a civil penalty....




> It can be difficult to tell the difference between an assault and interference—but the difference is crucial. *As just explained, interference is a civil wrong, and assault is a criminal offense.* And in fact, any sort of offensive touching or threats against a crewmember can constitute both interference and assault. Usually, however, people are charged with assault only if they physically attack a crewmember or cause injury.


http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rewmember.htm#

----------


## Jan2017

> He's got two. One a personal injury lairyer, the other a corporate liaryer. 
> 
>   I don't think the airlines will want a trial. They are already taking a hit and to open the wound fresh in another couple of years won't be in their interest.


Yeah, the airline corporate lawyers surely will not want this to go to trial - except for all those billable hours.




> The Kentucky doctor dragged off a United Airlines flight has two lawyers representing him –
>  and remained hospitalized Tuesday – in a sign he might be planning to sue the airlines, the Daily Mail reported.
> 
> "The family of Dr. Dao wants the world to know that they are very appreciative of the outpouring of prayers, 
> concern and support they have received," the statement from lawyer Stephen Golan related.
> 
>  "Currently, they are focused only on Dr. Dao's medical care and treatment."


http://www.newsmax.com/us/united-air.../11/id/783868/

----------


## juleswin

> *That Lucky Doctor Who Got Kicked Off that United Airlines Flight*
> 
> Thomas DiLorenzo	
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...rlines-flight/
> 
> Darn.  Why couldn’t that happen to me.  That doctor who was beaten bloody and knocked unconscious before being dragged off an airplane like a hogtied cow on his way to being branded by the Chicago police is about to become a very wealthy man.  Logic suggests that he will sue United Airlines, the Chicago Police Department, O’Hare Airport, all the flight attendants and the two pilots, and the gate agent, for starters.  All of them conspired to brutalize him for objecting to their unilateral reneging on his contract with United Airlines.  They decided that calling in the Chicago cops to beat him to a bloody, unconscious pulp was cheaper than offering him (or anyone else on the flight) an extra few hundred bucks for his seat.
> 
> *If you would like to know what daily life was like in say Bulgaria, Romania, or the Soviet Union itself in the 50s an 60s, just book a flight on any American airline.  They will ask you for your papers, frisk you, maybe even force you to strip naked for an anal search, while someone constantly shouts directions in your face:  “Empty your pockets!  No belts! No shoes!  No liquids!  Shut up and move!  Stand right here!  Hold your arms out while I grope you!  Get in line!  Put your bags over here!  Take off that coat!  No sweaters!  Hold your hair up, lady! I’m going to put my hands in your pants!  Spread your legs!  Are you wearing a wired bra?!  What’s that medication in your luggage?!  Stop and let the German Shepherd sniff you!   Hold your hands out!   Stand here!”*
> ...


And when you think Huffighton post would't go any lower, they come up with this. Now I have seen it all

----------


## timosman

> Your answer tacitly assumes that they have not.  I'd bet money I do not have that it is not the case.  My confidence of winning that bet is very high.


How much do you want to bet. You can never overestimate the corporate stupidity.





> You think airlines can just pull aircraft out of their bootholes just like that?  Allow me to disabuse you of that grossly mistaken assumption.  Firstly, passenger aircraft are hella costly.  If they are not in the air, full of people and cargo, they are hemorrhaging capital.  Airlines typically have very few "spare" aircraft.  The only real reason for a plane to be on the ground is when they are being maintained or repaired.  Otherwise, they are flying to pay their mortgages.  Small airlines have virtually no extra aircraft kept idle.  Large airlines like United _might_ have half a percent, if that.  When an aircraft goes out of service unexpectedly, as often as not the flight is cancelled because there is no replacement hardware available.  Grounded aircraft are liabilities.  BIG ones.


They did not need an extra plane, just a different plane. A simple switcheroo with another plane scheduled for a different route would do. United had plenty of planes at that airport. The problem is when you are used to handling the cattle this option does not even enter your mind.

----------


## Danke

> *That Lucky Doctor Who Got Kicked Off that United Airlines Flight*
> 
> Thomas DiLorenzo    
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...rlines-flight/
> 
> Darn.  Why couldnt that happen to me.  That doctor who was beaten bloody and knocked unconscious before being dragged off an airplane like a hogtied cow on his way to being branded by the Chicago police is about to become a very wealthy man.  Logic suggests that he will sue United Airlines, the Chicago Police Department, OHare Airport, all the flight attendants and the two pilots, and the gate agent, for starters.  All of them conspired to brutalize him for objecting to their unilateral reneging on his contract with United Airlines.  They decided that calling in the Chicago cops to beat him to a bloody, unconscious pulp was cheaper than offering him (or anyone else on the flight) an extra few hundred bucks for his seat.
> 
> *If you would like to know what daily life was like in say Bulgaria, Romania, or the Soviet Union itself in the 50s an 60s, just book a flight on any American airline.  They will ask you for your papers, frisk you, maybe even force you to strip naked for an anal search, while someone constantly shouts directions in your face:  Empty your pockets!  No belts! No shoes!  No liquids!  Shut up and move!  Stand right here!  Hold your arms out while I grope you!  Get in line!  Put your bags over here!  Take off that coat!  No sweaters!  Hold your hair up, lady! Im going to put my hands in your pants!  Spread your legs!  Are you wearing a wired bra?!  Whats that medication in your luggage?!  Stop and let the German Shepherd sniff you!   Hold your hands out!   Stand here!*
> ...


He can't go after the crew, they had nothing to do with this.  Removal of a passenger is the Job of a customer service supervisor...if that doesn't work, then the cops.

And he was not unconscious, just acting that way.


edit: "cops to beat him to a bloody, unconscious pulp".  Talk about exaggeration.  He hit the armrest as he resisted being pulled from his seat after taking a swing at the officer.

----------


## timosman

> And he was not unconscious, just acting that way.


Wow, Danke, how did you establish that? Or is it another conspiracy theory of yours?

----------


## Danke

> Wow, Danke, how did you establish that? Or is it another conspiracy theory of yours?


Another?


watch the video of him being dragged off, he is holding his cellphone.


edit:  you will see he even ran back on the aircraft with his cellphone.

----------


## sparebulb

> And he was not unconscious, just acting that way.





> Wow, Danke, how did you establish that?


Danke was out in the jetway and found that the subject responded to manual stimulation.

Plaintiffs attorneys will argue that it was simply priapism.

----------


## osan

> How much do you want to bet. You can never overestimate the corporate stupidity.


How much experience have you with such corporations?  I have 30 years worth.  Yes, there is some stupidity, but it's not nearly as common as you seem to think, especially in the F500.  Managing a large business is not so easy as many seem to think.




> They did not need an extra plane, just a different plane. A simple switcheroo with another plane scheduled for a different route would do.


Just like _that_, eh?




> United had plenty of planes at that airport. The problem is when you are used to handling the cattle this option does not even enter your mind.


This is not a well reasoned assertion.

I will also add that it wasn't even United.  It was Republic Air, operating as United Express, so the media didn't even get that part correct, and the fact of which removes United another layer from any culpability.  Different corporation, different CEO; a man named Bedford or some such.

I would add that the "victim" demanded $1500 _and_ a first-class seat.  Apparently he ran off the aircraft and then back on, a violation of security.  

This story is not cut and dried in the way the media are portraying.  You're being lead by the nose down a garden path.  To what end, who can say?  But it is still a trip down Bull$#@! Street.

The police are 100% culpable.

----------


## Danke

> How much experience have you with such corporations?  I have 30 years worth.  Yes, there is some stupidity, but it's not nearly as common as you seem to think, especially in the F500.  Managing a large business is not so easy as many seem to think.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like _that_, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a well reasoned assertion.
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

----------


## osan

> There are conditions and there are "conditions." I've posted the contract. A liaryer could easily win. The airline will settle out of court on this one and then change their contract.


Upon what do you base this prediction?

----------


## osan

> The airlines actually sell tickets to their employees to board the plane. The fact that they are free doesn't mean that they are not being sold or they are not tickets. Oversold, overbooked or whatever you wanna call it, it is covered under the rules. *The ruthless lawyers that come up with these contracts make sure the arses of their client is covered.*


And why is that?  Because _government_ created the environment where such behavior is needed just to survive.

I am a bit gob-smacked that so many people here are missing this, the most essential point of them all, choosing to take the media bait and get all knotted in the undies over United, who have no rationally discernible fault in any of this.




> The only court that they lose this case is in the court of public opinion.


Likely so, but how long does anyone think that that will last?  We are talking about 21st century AmeriKans here.

----------


## timosman

> I am a bit gob-smacked that so many people here are missing this, the most essential point of them all, choosing to take the media bait and get all knotted in the undies over United, who have no rationally discernible fault in any of this.


Rogue cops appeared out of nowhere and beaten the passenger.

Here is the sound of the world's tiniest violin playing for UA.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*United Airlines vows not to call police on passengers as CEO apologizes for fiasco*

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...412-story.html

United Airlines said it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove paid and seated passengers who have not agreed to give up their places on sold-out flights, one of several moves the airline announced Wednesday to try to quell a week of consumer outrage.

The Chicago airline’s chief executive, Oscar Munoz, told ABC News’ “Good Morning America” on Wednesday morning that he felt “shame” when he watched the video of a passenger, Dr. David Dao, being dragged off a sold-out United flight bound for Louisville, Ky., on Sunday by Chicago airport police.

United has said it needed to bump four passengers to make room for airline employees who needed to travel to Louisville. The airline reportedly offered $400 and a hotel stay, and then $800 to passengers to induce them to give up their seats. When there were no volunteers, United selected Dao and other passengers to get off the plane.

Dao refused, prompting airport police to pull him screaming from his seat.

Also on Wednesday, the Chicago Department of Aviation put two more officers who were involved in the onboard fracas on administrative leave, joining an officer who was suspended earlier. The passenger, Dao, took steps that could be a prelude to a lawsuit, and President Trump weighed in on the controversy.

During his interview, Munoz apologized to Dao, his family, passengers on the plane, United customers and employees, pledging that this “will never happen again on a United Airlines flight.”

Later Wednesday, United said all customers on that flight are receiving compensation for their ticket costs.

Such moves are the right first steps, branding experts said. But they believe the airline will have to do a lot more to regain the trust of customers.

“They have so destroyed the connection and trust they’ve built up over the years,” said Eric Schiffer, chief executive of Reputation Management Consultants in Irvine. “And it wasn’t just the beat-down of a customer that everyone could project themselves being — it was the response afterwards, which was so cold and done with such a lack of empathy. It made people believe they just don’t care."

After the videos and photos of Dao’s removal from the plane generated public outrage, Munoz initially said in a letter to employees that the 69-year-old physician from Elizabethtown, Ky., was a “belligerent” customer who “refused to comply” with requests to give up his seat.

Munoz apologized to Dao in subsequent statements, calling the incident a “truly horrific event.” In Wednesday’s interview, Munoz said his initial words “fell short of truly expressing what we were feeling.”

*Munoz said the airline will conduct a “deep and thorough” review of many of its policies related to this, including the incentives offered to give up seats once people are aboard an aircraft. If no one chooses to leave the plane, despite the compensation offered, Munoz said United will not put a law enforcement official on the plane to take them off.*

*“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that,” he said.*

This change could spread to other airlines, analysts said.

“It just seems like something that is rare enough where there’s a lot of upside to be able to promise passengers that this is not going to happen to you and it’s not costly to do,” said Seth Kaplan, managing partner of Airline Weekly. “There’s just no downside to doing this.”

In 2016, airlines posted an involuntary bumping rate of 62 per 1 million passengers, down from 73 per 1 million fliers the year before, according to a recent report from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The bureau said the 2016 figure represents the lowest annual rate since 1995.

Delta and American airlines did not respond to requests for comment on whether their policies would change.

Although United has denied reports that the Chicago flight was overbooked, the incident has resulted in increased scrutiny of this common airline practice.

Jan Brueckner, professor of economics at UC Irvine, said overbooking can actually benefit consumers. If an airline flies with empty seats, it forgoes revenue on the flight.

“Eliminating empty seats is a good idea because it keeps fares down,” he said. “People don’t like it because it’s crowded, but still, they care more about the price than anything.”

Rather than changing policies on overbooking, airlines should adjust their compensation policies to get more volunteers to take a later flight, he said. Currently, federal rules cap the compensation amount that airlines can pay for involuntary bumping at $1,350.

*President Trump also brought up this point in a Wednesday interview with the Wall Street Journal. Trump said airlines shouldn’t be prevented from overselling flights, but should eliminate the maximum value of compensation vouchers so passengers have more incentive to give up their seats.*

On Wednesday, Dao asked a Chicago-area court for an order requiring United and the city of Chicago to retain all recordings, video and reports of the incident, as well as the personnel files of the aviation department officials who pulled him from the flight, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Thomas A. Demetrio and Stephen L. Golan, attorneys representing Dao, said they planned to hold a news conference in Chicago on Thursday morning.

In his interview with ABC News, Munoz said he had reached out to Dao and left a message, but hasn’t yet been able to connect with the passenger.

*When asked whether he believed Dao was at fault, Munoz hesitated before saying, “No, he can’t be. He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way, period."*

----------


## timosman

> Munoz said the airline *WILL* conduct a deep and thorough review of many of its policies related to this


I am worried about  @osan and his 30 years of experience dealing with F50 companies 

Actually not really

----------


## AZJoe

Can anyone say suicidal business policy. 
Its seems idiotic CEO Oscar Munoz flunked business pre-101.

If not a single passenger thought a $1,000 voucher was fair compensation to give up their purchased seat at the very last minute, then it absolutely was not fair compensation. The proper thing for the airline to do if they want the seats back is to up the ante until one of the passengers finds the price fair. They should have offered a $1500 voucher. 

To those who defend such stupid business practice because they claim it was in the fine print hidden away on some nebulous page of the website, aside from being a stupid business practice it also fails under the contract as well. This was not an "oversold" fight. UA wanted to boot passengers for other reasons, but not because it was "oversold" so the provision is completely inapplicable. 
Further the "DENIED BOARDING" provision only applies to pre-boarding. It allows to deny boarding. Nothing in the provision allows United to rescind after boarding. United Airlines is the party that completely breached its own contract that it wrote. Even applying all the fine print, there was no breach by the customer.

Even if the provisions were applicable (and its not), there is still the business and marketing aspect. Put fine print hidden away in an adhesion contract that violates the reasonable expectation of customers, and you will indeed deservedly lose customers, lose goodwill and reputation, and get negative feedback. Duhhh. 

Further the provision states UA would offer "compensation in an amount determined by UA", is completely meaningless for enforcement. It has no discernible determination at the time of sale. It is what is known in contract as an "illusory promise". 

Lastly, reiterate that regardless of what they put in the fine print, this is stupid business practice and UA justly deserves all the consequential fallout it is receiving in the free market and realm of consumer opinion for its idiotic customer service policy. But then I guess Oscar Munoz wants United Airlines to be the next Pan Am, TWA, Northwest or Eastern.

----------


## timosman

Is there a special place in hell for corporate statists? I mean people who would oppose the state doing something but are perfectly fine when a corpo does that because of free markets and fine print?

----------


## specsaregood

> Is there a special place in hell for corporate statists? I mean people who would oppose the state doing something but are perfectly fine when a corpo does that because of free markets and fine print?


Actually, they tried to use govt regulations to justify sticking it to him.    This is a big change of tone from the CEO.  Its almost believable, he comes across as a psychopathic liar to me now instead of just a copsucker.

----------


## timosman

> Actually, they tried to use govt regulations to justify sticking it to him.    This is a big change of tone from the CEO.  Its almost believable, he comes across as a psychopathic liar to me now instead of just a copsucker.


Who lobbied for or not opposed these regulations when they were introduced? Requiring passengers to show a gov issued id to board the flight? Sure, this is good for the business. The cattle will not be able to trade tickets among themselves.

----------


## otherone

> This is a big change of tone from the CEO.  Its almost believable, he comes across as a psychopathic liar to me now instead of just a copsucker.


He comes across to me as someone who just left an emergency meeting with his board of directors, corporate attorneys and PR firm.

----------


## osan

> I am worried about  @osan and his 30 years of experience dealing with F50 companies 
> 
> Actually not really


And the value-adding purpose of this sarcasm is...

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *osan* 
> I am a bit gob-smacked that so many people here are missing this, the most essential point of them all, choosing to take the media bait and get all knotted in the undies over United, who have no rationally discernible fault in any of this.
> 
> 
> Rogue cops appeared out of nowhere and beaten the passenger.


You are drawing a non-sequitur.  What you wrote here cannot be reasonably inferred from what I have written.  The cops were called.  By REPUBLIC AIRLINES.  They called the cops in compliance with _federal mandate_ and pursuant to their contractual rights as per the sales agreement into which the passenger had voluntarily entered.

As for the cops being rogue, that is likely true, but places no stain upon the carriers in question.  If you want to do business in air transport, here is the $#@!-ton of rules and regulations with which you must comply.  When I was a pilot, the FARs were about an inch or so thick. Now they are something like three inches thick, having grown that much since 1987, the last year for which I have time in the left seat.  You can't fart out of regulation without facing stern consequences, even as a private pilot.  

Isn't @Danke an ATP?  Ask him about the mountain of feces that would pile upon his head for breaches of the FARs.  The FAA are like ultimately frothy tyrants.  For any airline to violate their rules and regulations is to incur large fines and other troubles.  It's not like Republic had a choice in the matter, save to go out of business.  Sure, they could have let the whole matter go.  Then what?  No crew for a whole aircraft's worth of passengers?  Those kinds of scheduling losses can spiral into huge costs and other problems.  Ferrying empty aircraft between cities is not cheap, nor is paying the crews.




> Here is the sound of the world's tiniest violin playing for UA.


And here's the money shot, as it were, where you make apparent your disregard for truth in preference for what appears to be some sort of hatred for either United or perhaps all air carriers.  The possible reasons for this are large in number.  Would you care to illuminate us as to the basis of your apparent ire?

----------


## Jan2017

Another day of hot trading expected for United Airlines - Continental Airlines Holdings, Inc.(Nasdaq: UAL) (CBOE equity options)
the parent owners in charge of the now famous United Express 3411,
and who will face eminent legal expenses and court battles. The jury selection process should occur maybe by the end of the year,
 with venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Chicago's Aviation Police were called into action.




>

----------


## phill4paul

> I will also add that it wasn't even United.  It was Republic Air, operating as United Express, so the media didn't even get that part correct, and the fact of which removes United another layer from any culpability.  Different corporation, different CEO; a man named Bedford or some such.





> You are drawing a non-sequitur.  What you wrote here cannot be reasonably inferred from what I have written.  The cops were called.  By REPUBLIC AIRLINES.


Republic Airlines are considered a Codeshare Partner.




> RULE 18 SERVICE PROVIDED BY UNITED EXPRESS AND OTHER CODESHARE PARTNERS
> 
> *UA has arrangements with certain other carriers to enable UA to provide Codeshare services to Passengers on flights operated by these carriers.* Transportation provided by UA under a Codeshare arrangement with these carriers is designated by a flight number that includes UA’s two-letter airline designator code, “UA”. NOTE: For travel to or from the European Union and for reservations made in the European Union, UA will indicate the identity of the operating carrier at the time of reservation or as soon as administratively feasible.
> 
> *For Codeshare services on flights operated by another carrier, UA is responsible for the entirety of the Codeshare journey for all obligations to Passengers established in these rules.* The rules contained herein with respect to ticketing will apply to UA Codeshare services on flights operated by partner airlines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the baggage liability provisions set forth in Rule 28 shall govern the liability of UA with respect to any transportation subject to this Contract.
> When another foreign or U.S. Codeshare partner operates a flight on which UA’s designator code “UA” appears, the operating carrier’s contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays will apply to that flight.


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec18

----------


## jmdrake

> In his interview with ABC News, Munoz said he had reached out to Dao and left a message, but hasn’t yet been able to connect with the passenger.


I guarantee you that Dao has been told by the lawyer who won the lottery to represent him in negotiations not to talk to anybody about the case.




> *When asked whether he believed Dao was at fault, Munoz hesitated before saying, “No, he can’t be. He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way, period."*


What that dumbass should have said in the first place.  They needed more seats for another flight crew?  They could have bought that flight crew seats on another airplane if it came to that.

----------


## Jan2017

*United Airlines to refund fares to all Flight 3411 passengers*

Passengers on United Express Flight 3411 will get a refund, United Airlines said Wednesday.
"All customers on Flight 3411 from Sunday, April 9, are receiving compensation for the cost of their tickets," United said in a statement

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/12/united-refund-fares-all-flight-3411-passengers/100384450/


*United Continental Holdings Quote & Summary Data*
*UAL 
$69.5 -0.43 -0.61%
*
*Delayed - data as of Apr. 13, 2017 9:39 ET

----------


## specsaregood

> What that dumbass should have said in the first place.  They needed more seats for another flight crew?  They could have bought that flight crew seats on another airplane if it came to that.


And that dumbass just won an industry award last week for "best communicator".   LOL.

----------


## phill4paul

> Upon what do you base this prediction?


  Umm, the contract itself? The desires of shareholders? The fact that they are in the middle of a PR nightmare that appears to have no end in sight unless they change policy?




> United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler
> 
> It’s hard to find examples of worse decision-making and customer treatment than United Airlines having a passenger dragged from an overbooked plane. But United’s shabby treatment of Geoff Fearns, including a threat to place him in handcuffs, comes close.
> 
> Fearns, 59, is president of TriPacific Capital Advisors, an Irvine investment firm that handles more than half a billion dollars in real estate holdings on behalf of public pension funds. He had to fly to Hawaii last week for a business conference.
> 
> Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff.
> 
> Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/business/laza...412-story.html

----------


## Danke

> What that dumbass should have said in the first place.  They needed more seats for another flight crew?  They could have bought that flight crew seats on another airplane if it came to that.


Not necessarily, in fact, doubtful.   Limited service.  One AA flight and one more UA flight left that night.  And they most likely were full or would get the crew in too late for the morning flight they were to work.  Among other reasons.

----------


## specsaregood

> Not necessarily, in fact, doubtful.   Limited service.  One AA flight and one more UA flight left that night.  And they may have been full or would get the crew in too late for the morning flight they were to work.  Among other reasons.


Regardless, there was a $ number somewhere out there that would have gotten them the seats they needed, they just wanted to strongarm instead.

Danke, who would have made the decision that was ultimately made to forcibly remove the passenger?  I assume the pilot had nothing to do with the seat purchasing negotions or the ultimate decision?  Or would he have?    I haven't seen anything in the articles talking about who made the decisions or controls the voluntary phase.  Or if they were put on leave or fired or retrained, etc.

----------


## Madison320

> And why is that?  Because _government_ created the environment where such behavior is needed just to survive.
> 
> I am a bit gob-smacked that so many people here are missing this, the most essential point of them all, choosing to take the media bait and get all knotted in the undies over United, who have no rationally discernible fault in any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Likely so, but how long does anyone think that that will last?  We are talking about 21st century AmeriKans here.


I agree, I posted something similar earlier. Juleswin, who I mostly agree with, says this is a normal result of free market capitalism but I disagree. It's been my experience that the most heavily regulated businesses also have the worst customer service. I don't think that's a coincidence. One thing regulation tends to do is make the products being sold very similar, since they all have to comply with a minimum standard. The minimum tends to become the maximum. Since the products or services are so similar the only thing left up to competition is price. Another thing regulation does is drive up the cost. If a flight was $200 instead of $400, and the flight services were more varied, I'd bet more people would shop around for things other than price.

----------


## Jan2017

> Not necessarily, in fact, doubtful.   Limited service.  One AA flight and one more UA flight left that night.  And they may have been full or would get the crew in too late for the morning flight they were to work.  Among other reasons.


"may have"
 but the limited service for the Chicago-Louisville route seems a reason to help Dr. Dao's case in the upcoming lawsuit - 
"He wants to go home." "go home" [queue E.T. scene]

Looks like the wife (?) goes off the plane after he's dragged off ? An extra seat now available.

This is United's hub and the crew could have gotten to Chicago-Midway in an hour - ahead of the two-hour delayed flight

----------


## Danke

> Regardless, there was a $ number somewhere out there that would have gotten them the seats they needed, they just wanted to strongarm instead.
> 
> Danke, who would have made the decision that was ultimately made to forcibly remove the passenger?  I assume the pilot had nothing to do with the seat purchasing negotions or the ultimate decision?  Or would he have?    I haven't seen anything in the articles talking about who made the decisions or controls the voluntary phase.  Or if they were put on leave or fired or retrained, etc.


I agree, and think there will probably be a change in process.

very rarely would a pilot get involved other than call for a customer service supervisor.  If after leaving the gate, maybe to have security meet the aircraft for a disruptive passenger.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not necessarily, in fact, doubtful.   Limited service.  One AA flight and one more UA flight left that night.  And they most likely were full or would get the crew in too late for the morning flight they were to work.  Among other reasons.


  Regardless of the cost I will guarantee that a private charter would have ended up costing them less in the long run.

----------


## Danke

> "may have"
>  but the limited service for the Chicago-Louisville route seems a reason to help Dr. Dao's case in the upcoming lawsuit - 
> "He wants to go home." "go home" [queue E.T. scene]
> 
> Looks like the wife (?) goes off the plane after he's dragged off ? An extra seat now available.
> 
> This is United's hub and the crew could have gotten to Chicago-Midway in an hour - ahead of the two-hour delayed flight


I edited, almost certainly there were no seats on the later flight, otherwise that would have been offered to the passengers.

----------


## specsaregood

> I agree, and think there will probably be a change in process.
> 
> very rarely would a pilot get involved other than call for a customer service supervisor.  If after leaving the gate, maybe to have security meet the aircraft for a disruptive passenger.


So would have been somebody at the gate/airport that made the decision?  Or some bloated paper pusher behind a desk far away from the scene?

----------


## Danke

> Regardless of the cost I will guarantee that a private charter would have ended up costing them less in the long run.


Just offering more money to get volunteers would be the cheapest route, I bet they didn't have that much further to go before 4 volunteers raised their hands.

as for chartering an aircraft, who knows how long that would take, need a crew to fly that also...

----------


## phill4paul

> Just offering more money to get volunteers would be the cheapest route, I bet they didn't have that much further to go before 4 volunteers raised their hands.


  I agree. There would have been a price point in which someone would have given up their seat voluntarily.




> as for chartering an aircraft, who knows how long that would take, need a crew to fly that also...


  For enough ducats a private craft could have been found. I don't know what time schedule the employees were faced with. Perhaps even a private prop craft could have shuttled them.

----------


## Danke

> So would have been somebody at the gate/airport that made the decision?  Or some bloated paper pusher behind a desk far away from the scene?


Gate agents, but they would probably have gotten a supervisor over to remove the passenger.   If they can't  persuade, then security.

----------


## sparebulb

> *United Airlines to refund fares to all Flight 3411 passengers*
> 
> Passengers on United Express Flight 3411 will get a refund, United Airlines said Wednesday.
> "All customers on Flight 3411 from Sunday, April 9, are receiving compensation for the cost of their tickets," United said in a statement
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/12/united-refund-fares-all-flight-3411-passengers/100384450/
> 
> 
> *United Continental Holdings Quote & Summary Data*
> ...


If this were a criminal matter against Dao, and it still may be, and Mr. Dao compensated all the passengers for their inconvenience, how long would it take for the kops and persecutor to claim that he was trying to influence their potential testimonies?

Kriminal witness tampering for the non-corporate entity.

----------


## specsaregood

> If this were a criminal matter against Dao, and it still may be, and Mr. Dao compensated all the passengers for their inconvenience, how long would it take for the kops and persecutor to claim that he was trying to influence their potential testimonies?
> 
> Kriminal witness tampering for the non-corporate entity.


I'm guessing they are trying to head off any lawsuits for causing psychological trauma to passengers that had to witness it.   I'm surprised we haven't heard about them offering free counselling yet.

----------


## sparebulb

> I'm guessing they are trying to head off any lawsuits for causing tramatic psychological trauma to passengers that had to witness it.   I'm surprised we haven't heard about them offering free counselling yet.


Hopefully, one of the passengers will internetz the fine print.

----------


## phill4paul

> Gate agents, but they would probably have gotten a supervisor over to remove the passenger.   If they can't  persuade, then security.


  Somewhere in all this legalese it's stated that only a supervisor can remove a passenger. I remembering reading it yesterday but can't find it right now. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...iage.aspx#sec5

----------


## juleswin

> *Just offering more money to get volunteers would be the cheapest route*, I bet they didn't have that much further to go before 4 volunteers raised their hands.
> 
> as for chartering an aircraft, who knows how long that would take, need a crew to fly that also...


You don't know that, their internal computations may have shown that the amount they decided to offer is the right amount that would allow them to continue to offer cheap and affordable tickets to customers while keeping them from staying out of bankruptcy. You have no idea what a precedent like kind of decision would bring.

The point is that they have a protocol that prescribes what to do in a situation like this and they followed it. Just because there was a problem with one idiot who thought he was above the law doesn't mean you should scrape what has been a sound business model. Hindsight is always 20/20

People like to talk how they hate political correctness so much but it is knee jerk reactions like this that keep it going. Bend the rules for the one old, Asian, doctor and next group who breaks the contract/rules would demand the rules be bent for them too and this is one way the PC culture is sustained. This is also the reason why doctors practice defensive medicine and our products is littered with stupid warnings of what not to do.

There are no 100% guaranteed tickets on an airplane, there is always something that can happen to bump you out of your paid seat but the least guaranteed of all are the tickets in the economy class. The one advantage it has is that it is cheap and when you buy it, be ready to deal with the disadvantages of cheapo tickets.  But nobody wants to deal with consequences, we all want the reward without any of the pain.

----------


## phill4paul

> You don't know that, their internal computations may have shown that the amount they decided to offer is the right amount that would allow them to continue to offer cheap and affordable tickets to customers while keeping them from staying out of bankruptcy. You have no idea what a precedent like kind of decision would bring.
> 
> The point is that they have a protocol that prescribes what to do in a situation like this and they followed it. Just because there was a problem with one idiot who thought he was above the law doesn't mean you should scrape what has been a sound business model. Hindsight is always 20/20
> 
> People like to talk how they hate political correctness so much but it is knee jerk reactions like this that keep it going. Bend the rules for the one old, Asian, doctor and next group who breaks the contract/rules would demand the rules be bent for them too and this is one way the PC culture is sustained. This is also the reason why doctors practice defensive medicine and our products is littered with stupid warnings of what not to do.
> 
> There are no 100% guaranteed tickets on an airplane, there is always something that can happen to bump you out of your paid seat but the least guaranteed of all are the tickets in the economy class. The one advantage it has is that it is cheap and when you buy it, be ready to deal with the disadvantages of cheapo tickets.  But nobody wants to deal with consequences, we all want the reward without any of the pain.


  See post #382. You are talking out your ass.

----------


## Danke

> You don't know that, their internal computations may have shown that the amount they decided to offer is the right amount that would allow them to continue to offer cheap and affordable tickets to customers while keeping them from staying out of bankruptcy. You have no idea what a precedent like kind of decision would bring.
> 
> The point is that they have a protocol that prescribes what to do in a situation like this and they followed it. Just because there was a problem with one idiot who thought he was above the law doesn't mean you should scrape what has been a sound business model. Hindsight is always 20/20
> 
> People like to talk how they hate political correctness so much but it is knee jerk reactions like this that keep it going. Bend the rules for the one old, Asian, doctor and next group who breaks the contract/rules would demand the rules be bent for them too and this is one way the PC culture is sustained. This is also the reason why doctors practice defensive medicine and our products is littered with stupid warnings of what not to do.
> 
> There are no 100% guaranteed tickets on an airplane, there is always something that can happen to bump you out of your paid seat but the least guaranteed of all are the tickets in the economy class. The one advantage it has is that it is cheap and when you buy it, be ready to deal with the disadvantages of cheapo tickets.  But nobody wants to deal with consequences, we all want the reward without any of the pain.


In this situation, as anyone can see, it would have been the cheapest route.  Security certainly needs better training in Deescalation.

----------


## specsaregood

> In this situation, as anyone can see, it would have been the cheapest route.


In hindsight of course.  I guess the $#@!s in Chicago just figured he would comply like a good little herd animal.   And now look at the $#@!storm just one person not complying can cause.

I'm still wondering why no news agency has gone to the person that made the actual decision and asked them what they were thinking.

----------


## phill4paul

> In this situation, as anyone can see, it would have been the cheapest route.


  Your point of view is invalid. juleswin insists that the sky is not blue.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not necessarily, in fact, doubtful.   Limited service.  One AA flight and one more UA flight left that night.  And they most likely were full or would get the crew in too late for the morning flight they were to work.  Among other reasons.


Then charter a Piper Cub to fly the crew.  I mean...they do have pilots qualified to fly those right?

----------


## juleswin

> See post #382. You are talking out your ass.


And what was the point in make me read post #382?  I feel like you do not understand anything that I said.

----------


## Danke

> Then charter a Piper Cub to fly the crew.  I mean...they do have pilots qualified to fly those right?


I don't even like getting on a plane flown by a girl pilot, let alone a Piper Cub pilot.

----------


## Jan2017

> Then charter a Piper Cub to fly the crew.  I mean...they do have pilots qualified to fly those right?


UAL would have had flights to close enough nearby Cincinnati or Memphis, either from O'Hare or Chicago's other airport in the city - Midway, 
in order to get the needed crew to their morning flight from Louisville ?

*People rally at Chicago O'Hare to protest United airlines

*https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news...nes/100365224/

----------


## juleswin

> In this situation, as anyone can see, it would have been the cheapest route.  Security certainly needs better training in Deescalation.


They spent  about 2 hrs trying to deescalate the situation. Maybe some extra training would have helped bu there is no guarantee. I have a strong feeling that nothing other than violence(or an outrageous sum of money) would have detached that man from the seat. Some people are just hard headed like that and there is nothing you can do but just yank em off by sheer force.

----------


## Danke

Live:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david-...-stream-watch/

----------


## SeanTX

His lawyer claims Dao suffered concussion, broken nose, injury to sinuses, lost two front teeth, faces reconstructive surgery.  If he would have just been a good American and complied that would not have happened though -- he did this to himself.

----------


## Jan2017

> Live:
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david-...-stream-watch/


Thanks.

"Corboy and Demetrio" the firm (?) lawyer : "in the discovery process for this lawsuit"

"Dao's wife is also a physician . . . she had patients to see too"

"paying passengers their full ticket fare is not going to keep them quiet"

----------


## phill4paul

> And what was the point in make me read post #382?  I feel like you do not understand anything that I said.


  Because it totally destroys your bull$#@! post regarding "cheapo" tickets. Get over it. And try reading it.

----------


## specsaregood

> They spent  about 2 hrs trying to deescalate the situation. Maybe some extra training would have helped bu there is no guarantee. I have a strong feeling that nothing other than violence(or an outrageous sum of money) would have detached that man from the seat. Some people are just hard headed like that and there is nothing you can do but just yank em off by sheer force.


And the overwhelming point is that there were solutions available other than getting that man detached from that seat!

----------


## juleswin

> Because it totally destroys your bull$#@! post regarding "cheapo" tickets. Get over it. And try reading it.


I made my post before I read the article you posted on post #382 and I still covered the point you were trying to made. Ask @Danke and he would confirm this to you, there are no 100% guaranteed seats on an airplane. There is always something that could happen to bump you out of your seat.




> There are no 100% guaranteed tickets on an airplane, there is always something that can happen to bump you out of your paid seat but the least guaranteed of all are the tickets in the economy class. The one advantage it has is that it is cheap and when you buy it, be ready to deal with the disadvantages of cheapo tickets. But nobody wants to deal with consequences, we all want the reward without any of the pain.


Also, this idea of the passengers saying they handed in their ticked, sat down, stowed their carry on etc etc that somehow makes em immune from losing their seat. Well, as long as the boarding process is going on, you can still lose your seat. The only time your seat is safe is only when the airplane doors are closed. I guess they can still open it after closing it but if the plane tires are still touching the ground, they can technically yank you out of the seat.

These are the conditions we knowingly or unknowingly agree to when we buy a plane ticket

----------


## Jan2017

fwiw, remember People's Express in the 80's anybuddy ?

They flew same jets as Aloha Airlines did interisland, Boeing 707,
 but it was like a bus between Boston-NY and some others.

Get on, and take off, or catch the next flight in 25 mins.

Pay by cash or credit card while in the air, about $35 or whatever.
Stewardess with the one-liner . . . always about how without payment you'll have to exit the plane-lol

----------


## juleswin

> And the overwhelming point is that there were solutions available other than getting that man detached from that seat!


That is because hindsight is always 20/20. The point I am making is that they had a working  business model that worked them. I doubt a company that big would be able to be successful if they did not have a protocol in place. You can't just allow your workers to do whatever they wanted on the job. The rules are always given and usually a bit of a wiggle room to operate but once all reasonable and profitable measures have been exhausted, the next step is force.

Another thing I have to mention is this, people are looking at the drop is stock price, the potential cost in settlement and lawyer fees etc. But can anyone imagine the loss they would have incurred if say a pilot had crashed his plane because he was up all night arranging for a ride and driving down to Louisville? or loss in profit if they had a string of flight cancellations the next morning and got loads of people stranded at the airport. For all we know, they might have dodged a fatal bullet by removing him.

----------


## specsaregood

> That is because hindsight is always 20/20. The point I am making is that they had a working  business model that worked them. I doubt a company that big would be able to be successful if they did not have a protocol in place. You can't just allow your workers to do whatever they wanted on the job. The rules are always given and usually a bit of a wiggle room to operate but once all reasonable and profitable measures have been exhausted, the next step is force.
> 
> Another thing I have to mention is this, people are looking at the drop is stock price, the potential cost in settlement and lawyer fees etc. But can anyone imagine the loss they would have incurred if say a pilot had crashed his plane because he was up all night arranging for a ride and driving down to Louisville? or loss in profit if they had a string of flight cancellations the next morning and got loads of people stranded at the airport. For all we know, they might have dodged a fatal bullet by removing him.


And some $#@! at the gate decided this is the guy that had to come off the airplane and he was gonna heed his authority.

----------


## dannno

> fwiw, remember People's Express in the 80's anybuddy ?
> 
> They flew same jets as Aloha Airlines did interisland, Boeing 707,
>  but it was like a bus between Boston-NY and some others.
> 
> Get on, and take off, or catch the next flight in 25 mins.
> 
> Pay by cash or credit card while in the air, about $35 or whatever.
> Stewardess with the one-liner . . . always about how without payment you'll have to exit the plane-lol


I wonder what ruined that business model??

----------


## Jan2017

> I wonder what ruined that business model??


Yup, and keep in mind they didn't even know your name.

----------


## sparebulb

> I wonder what ruined that business model??


The airlines stood idly by while the TSA and the kops have humiliated, abused, raped, and assaulted their customers for 16 years now.

They shrugged their shoulders and have taken no responsibility, referring all responsibility to the 'gubmint.

They rely on a simple phone call to the authoritys instantly vacuums away a simple internal problem.  This has served the airlines pretty well so far.

It was only a matter of time before one of these unpleasant encounters would slip by the screening checkpoint and the gate and on to the airplane where it would be witnessed and documented by an audience.

Yonited just got caught being lazy, not even trying to solve a problem, but just flipping the switch on the goon squad vacuum.

And they have the nerve to act as if this is an isolated incident.

----------


## juleswin

> And some $#@! at the gate decided this is the guy that had to come off the airplane and he was gonna heed his authority.


Whats your problem with the $#@! at the gate? would it make it any better if someone higher up gave the orders?

Also, what is wrong with heeding orders? He agreed to the process when he bought his tickets. I don't have my own business, but if I did, I would really appreciate it if my customers followed orders as opposed to fighting them (especially when they previously agreed to follow orders). If you take the emotions out of this, you would realize that the airline did nothing wrong.

----------


## timosman

> His lawyer claims Dao suffered concussion, broken nose, injury to sinuses, lost two front teeth, faces reconstructive surgery.  If he would have just been a good American and complied that would not have happened though -- he did this to himself.


They should look very closely at his citizenship application. There might be a basis for revocation.

----------


## timosman

> Whats your problem with the $#@! at the gate? would it make it any better if someone higher up gave the orders?
> 
> Also, what is wrong with heeding orders? He agreed to the process when he bought his tickets. I don't have my own business, but if I did, I would really appreciate it if my customers followed orders as opposed to fighting them (especially when they previously agreed to follow orders). If you take the emotions out of this, you would realize that the airline did nothing wrong.


I am afraid your experience herding cattle might not be very useful when dealing with humans. Are you familiar with such a concept as dignity?

----------


## osan

> Republic Airlines are considered a Codeshare Partner.


A legal technicality, probably the result of GOVERNMENT regulations pertinent to such relationships.

Even so, would it be your contention that when a Republic pilot goes funny and shoots a passenger, UA is morally culpable, all else equal?  Legally, perhaps; but as we know, legality seldom has anything to do with what it right.

----------


## euphemia

I don't think there are 12 people in all of Illinois who will support United/Republic Airlines in the lawsuit.

----------


## timosman

> A legal technicality, probably the result of GOVERNMENT regulations pertinent to such relationships.
> 
> Even so, would it be your contention that when a Republic pilot goes funny and shoots a passenger, UA is morally culpable, all else equal?  Legally, perhaps; but as we know, legality seldom has anything to do with what it right.


osan, your feeble attempts at damage control make me wonder about the nature of your relationship with UA. Do you want to disclose your holdings pertinent to this company?

----------


## specsaregood

> Whats your problem with the $#@! at the gate? would it make it any better if someone higher up gave the orders?
> 
> Also, what is wrong with heeding orders? He agreed to the process when he bought his tickets. I don't have my own business, but if I did, I would really appreciate it if my customers followed orders as opposed to fighting them (especially when they previously agreed to follow orders). If you take the emotions out of this, you would realize that the airline did nothing wrong.


Yeah, that about sums it up.  You clearly have the same type of attitude that caused this mess for UA.   There were plenty of other ways to handle this scenario.

----------


## timosman

> Yeah, that about sums it up.  You clearly have the same type of attitude that caused this mess for UA.   There were plenty of other ways to handle this scenario.


Not according to sycophants, this forum is full of.

----------


## osan

> Umm, the contract itself? The desires of shareholders? The fact that they are in the middle of a PR nightmare that appears to have no end in sight unless they change policy?


There are all manner of elements of the "policy".  Which ones?  I'm sure the policy would stand some work, but that goes only so far, beyond which any changes likely to satisfy the more whiny among us would result in bankruptcy or other serious trouble.  This is a business, after all, one of the purposes of which is to generate a return to the shareholders to whom you refer.

If you look beyond the superficialities, it becomes instantly clear that there are competing interests at play.  The art lies in finding the sweet spot where everyone is at least minimally satisfied.  This is not so easily achieved as some appear to believe.

As to the LA Times article, there appears to be a prejudiced voice at play there.  A whinging, far-left bitchery that causes havoc with the ear drums of the mind.  Let's see what I mean:





> United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler


Implication here is that United threatened them.  Did they?  Or was it police?

When you buy a contract to fly, you implicitly agree to the terms and conditions, which includes all of the federal law that goes along with it.  This is NOT the fault of the airlines.  It is the fault of GOVERNMENT.  Theye foist it upon us and if we do not comply, the bully boys take over.  Is it right?  $#@! no, but let us at least place the blame where it belongs.




> Its hard to find examples of worse decision-making and customer treatment than United Airlines having a passenger dragged from an overbooked plane. But Uniteds shabby treatment of Geoff Fearns, including a threat to place him in handcuffs, comes close.


The tacit innuendo is abundant here, and none of it seems just.




> Fearns, 59, is president of TriPacific Capital Advisors, an Irvine investment firm that handles more than half a billion dollars in real estate holdings on behalf of public pension funds. He had to fly to Hawaii last week for a business conference.


Irrelevant fluff designed to bolster sympathy in the reader.  It flies in direct contradiction of the other tacit message that we are all equal, which comes later.





> Then, *as Fearns tells it,* a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.


And how about as United tells it?  I guess that isn't very important.




> Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. *He shouldnt have to disembark.*


Who says?  Overly presumptuous bull$#@!.  Author is FAIL.

Thats when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute, Fearns said. They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.




> Apparently United had some mechanical troubles with the aircraft scheduled to make the flight. So the carrier swapped out that plane with a slightly smaller one with fewer first-class seats.


$#@! happened and someone had to get off.  It's all there in black and white in the contract.  It might be $#@!, but it's there and he agreed to it, even if only implicitly.




> So [united] turned to its *How to Screw Over Customers handbook* and determined that the one in higher standing  more miles flown, presumably  gets the seat and the other first-class passenger, even though hes also a member of the frequent-flier program, gets the boot.


How artlessly and ham-fistedly transparent.  Article not worth reading any further.

----------


## timosman

After spewing this last bucket of corporate propaganda osan decides to leave and join the kids at the kids table where Zippy can hardly contain his excitement: I am so glad you made it!

----------


## dannno

> I am afraid your experience herding cattle might not be very useful when dealing with humans. Are you familiar with such a concept as dignity?


He doesn't care if the guy had emergency heart surgery the next morning.. "rules are rules"

----------


## Danke

> There are all manner of elements of the "policy".  Which ones?  I'm sure the policy would stand some work, but that goes only so far, beyond which any changes likely to satisfy the more whiny among us would result in bankruptcy or other serious trouble.  This is a business, after all, one of the purposes of which is to generate a return to the shareholders to whom you refer.
> 
> If you look beyond the superficialities, it becomes instantly clear that there are competing interests at play.  The art lies in finding the sweet spot where everyone is at least minimally satisfied.  This is not so easily achieved as some appear to believe.
> 
> As to the LA Times article, there appears to be a prejudiced voice at play there.  A whinging, far-left bitchery that causes havoc with the ear drums of the mind.  Let's see what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most at people in domestic first class are not on a first class fare, but because of their mileage status, are eligible for a "free" upgrade.   My guess that is what happened here, he was upgraded, then someone with a higher mileage status showed up, so he had to go back to his coach seat.

the reverse happens all the time, first doesn't fill up, and just before closing doors, a gate agent will go in coach and upgrade the high mileage members.

----------


## phill4paul

> There are all manner of elements of the "policy".  Which ones?  I'm sure the policy would stand some work, but that goes only so far, beyond which any changes likely to satisfy the more whiny among us would result in bankruptcy or other serious trouble.  This is a business, after all, one of the purposes of which is to generate a return to the shareholders to whom you refer.
> 
> If you look beyond the superficialities, it becomes instantly clear that there are competing interests at play.  The art lies in finding the sweet spot where everyone is at least minimally satisfied.  This is not so easily achieved as some appear to believe.
> 
> As to the LA Times article, there appears to be a prejudiced voice at play there.  A whinging, far-left bitchery that causes havoc with the ear drums of the mind.  Let's see what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  How about companies not overbook or throw over seated passengers for employees? The policies are what have put them in this situation. Article not worth reading? Then don't. No skin off my knuckles. Customers have been pissed over these policies for quite a while. Some airlines will adapt. Others will not. Which airline do you think will make the better profit?

----------


## phill4paul

> Most at people in domestic first class are not on a first class fare, but because of their mileage status, are eligible for a "free" upgrade.   My guess that is what happened here, he was upgraded, then someone with a higher mileage status showed up, so he had to go back to his coach seat.
> 
> the reverse happens all the time, first doesn't fill up, and just before closing doors, a gate agent will go in coach and upgrade the high mileage members.


  No. The guy bought a first class ticket. Some animals first class ticket was more equal than his.




> Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles.

----------


## euphemia

I've worked in travel and tourism for over ten years.  I have never seen a case where an employee going for free or at a deep discount took priority over a full-fare guest.  

United has refunded all fares on this flight, and the ticker keeps going up on how much this will ultimately cost.  

Honestly, air travel is one of the most unjust industries out there.  Some people sitting side by side may pay dramatically different ratesd, and the criteria for injustice just keeps getting more blurry.

----------


## otherone

> Whats your problem with the $#@! at the gate? would it make it any better if someone higher up gave the orders?
> 
> Also, what is wrong with heeding *orders*? He agreed to the process when he bought his tickets. I don't have my own business, but if I did, I would really appreciate it if my customers followed *orders* as opposed to fighting them (especially when they previously agreed to follow *orders*). If you take the emotions out of this, you would realize that the airline did nothing wrong.


It all makes sense now.

----------


## timosman

> I've worked in travel and tourism for over ten years.  I have never seen a case where an employee going for free or at a deep discount took priority over a full-fare guest.  
> 
> United has refunded all fares on this flight, and the ticker keeps going up on how much this will ultimately cost.  
> 
> Honestly, air travel is one of the most unjust industries out there.  Some people sitting side by side may pay dramatically different ratesd, and the criteria for injustice just keeps getting more blurry.


No two passengers on the entire plane with the same fare. Who is fooling who?

----------


## Danke

> I've worked in travel and tourism for over ten years.  I have never seen a case where an employee going for free or at a deep discount took priority over a full-fare guest.


I never saw that either, and that is also not the case here with this incident.

----------


## Danke

> Honestly, air travel is one of the most unjust industries out there.  Some people sitting side by side may pay dramatically different ratesd, and the criteria for injustice just keeps getting more blurry.


Does it bother you that someone bought the same shoes last month when they were on sale that you bought for the regular price two days ago?

how about discounted food, as it is about to expire, like a seat on a particular flight will.

----------


## timosman

> I never saw that either, and that is also not the case here with this incident.


Danke, stop fooling people. Some take you as some flying industry expert. They needed to fly 4 employees of the airline on the company dime. How else would the cops get involved?

----------


## Danke

> No. The guy bought a first class ticket. Some animals first class ticket was more equal than his.



That is his story.  But regardless, plane change fewer first class seats now available, there is a priority system.   Want to be top dog, pay top price.

----------


## timosman

> That is his story.  But regardless, plane change fewer first class seats now available, there is a priority system.   Want to be top dog, pay top price.


Ok Danke, now you are ranting. Are you sure you didn't need more vacation away from the forum?

Did they drag you in just in time for this story?

----------


## Danke

> Danke, stop fooling people. Some take you as some flying industry expert. They needed to fly 4 employees of the airline on the company dime. How else would the cops get involved?


Ok, if you promise to stop being such a troll.

----------


## phill4paul

> That is his story.  But regardless, plane change fewer first class seats now available, there is a priority system.   Want to be top dog, pay top price.


  In the case of Dr. Dao no one was paying top dog price. Company employees bumped a paying customer. Sad. Bad for business.

----------


## timosman

> Ok, if you promise to stop being such a troll.


You first.

----------


## Danke

> In the case of Dr. Dao no one was paying top dog price. Company employees bumped a paying customer. Sad. Bad for business.


And why did the employer of those employees decide to do that?

----------


## timosman

> And why did the employer of those employees decide to do that?


Tough question. Let me consult my crystal ball. It says 'What goes around comes around'. Is this what you were looking for?

----------


## phill4paul

> And why did the employer of those employees decide to do that?


  Because they were used to getting away with doing that. And now they will have to rethink that business practice. Sad. Bad business.

----------


## Danke

> Because they were used to getting away with doing that. And now they will have to rethink that business practice. Sad. Bad business.


No, it won't change for any airline that needs to reposition crews.  Osan explained the ramifications earlier.  And I tried to a little myself.

----------


## phill4paul

> No, it won't change for any airline that needs to reposition crews.  Osan explained the ramifications earlier.  And I tried to a little myself.


 Well, they already changed one policy (United will no longer use police to remove passengers from flights). And this is even before a show trial. So I suppose we will see what we will see.

  There's a simple way to remedy this problem. It is called logistics.

----------


## phill4paul

Oh, $#@!. Dao hired Thomas Demetrio. This guy is a class action liaryer if I remember correctly.

  Edit: Yep.




> “There is a culture of disrespect, rudeness,” Demetrio said in a press conference on April 13 in the Dao case, but he said that, in Dao’s case, “rudeness, bullying the customers has gone the next step now to injury.”
> 
> Appearing at the press conference alongside Dao’s daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, Demetrio told the assembled media, “Here’s the law, real simple. If you’re going to eject a passenger, under no circumstances can it be done with unreasonable force or violence. That’s the law. If unreasonable force or violence is used… the common carrier, United Airlines, is responsible.”


http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/thomas...d-doctor-suit/

  This guy will win in front of a jury if any of them have ever flown the "friendly skies."

----------


## Danke

> Well, they already changed one policy (United will no longer use police to remove passengers from flights). And this is even before a show trial. So I suppose we will see what we will see.
> 
>   There's a simple way to remedy this problem. It is called logistics.


I think the remedy is upping The payoff to take a later flight.   Air travel is too dynamic to do otherwise.  Diversions, deviations and cancellations  for mechanical, someone ill, weather, air traffic control, etc.


i have canceled a flight for having a bad hair day.

----------


## juleswin

> Oh, $#@!. Dao hired Thomas Demetrio. This guy is a class action liaryer if I remember correctly.
> 
>   Edit: Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/thomas...d-doctor-suit/
> 
>   This guy will win in front of a jury if any of them have ever flown the "friendly skies."


Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?

----------


## timosman

> Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?


Poor corpos do not have enough lawyers on the payroll to stall the case in court for the next five years.

----------


## Danke

> Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?


Maybe Dao's former patients who exchanged gay sex for prescription drugs should sue him for his small salami.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?


   The way not to be in situations like this is not to be in situations like this. Sad. Bad business.

----------


## timosman

> Maybe Dao's former patients who exchanged gay sex for prescription drugs should sue him for his small salami.


Now you are spreading gossip irrelevant to the case.

----------


## timosman

> The way not to be in situations like this is not to be in situations like this. Sad. Bad business.


Uncle Sam has your back, but even him is not 100% guarantee of success in all the cases.

----------


## phill4paul

> Poor corpos do not have enough lawyers on the payroll to stall the case in court for the next five years.


  Oh, yeah. I'm sure they will be able to. The question then becomes do they actually want to take it to court 5 years down the road and open the wound anew? I suppose it will depend on the social justice climate at that time. I honestly think they will settle out of court. Eventually. But, yeah, I think they (the liaryers) will drag it out while billing hours.

----------


## Danke

> Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?


Clear some space, so I can send you a PM.

----------


## juleswin

> Poor corpos do not have enough lawyers on the payroll to stall the case in court for the next five years.


It is not very easy to treat an entity who you think is bigger and better than you fairly. Society feels they need to be cut down to size just because they are big and successful. They didn't break any laws, didn't break any contracts and yet the cheerleading section of RPF/DU wants to bury it.

It would only take one sensible, non emotional person on that jury to torpedo the money making scheme of the Doctor.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yea, lets sue the shyte out of UA. That would surely teach them to bow down to every customer who breaks their contract. What could be the downside of giving drama queens the power to easily bankrupt a company?


  It'd be much better to get the Federal Government to enact a "Passenger Bill of Rights." Right? If you have a dispute you take it to court if you cannot find resolve through arbitration. In court both sides argue their case before a jury. The jury makes a determination. They also set the fines/sentence/recompense. I'm pretty sure that is how the system works?

----------


## Jan2017

> osan, your feeble attempts at damage control make me wonder about the nature of your relationship with UA. Do you want to disclose your holdings pertinent to this company?


Another buying spree at UAL headquarters in Chicago . . . (?)

*UAL 
**
$69.07 -0.86 -1.23%
*
*Delayed - data as of 4:00pm ET Apr. 13, 2017

----------


## Danke

> It'd be much better to get the Federal Government to enact a "Passenger Bill of Rights." Right? If you have a dispute you take it to court if you cannot find resolve through arbitration. In court both sides argue their case before a jury. The jury makes a determination. The judge sets the fines/sentence/recompense. I'm pretty sure that is how the system works?


That already exists.

----------


## phill4paul

> It is not very easy to treat an entity who you think is bigger and better than you fairly. Society feels they need to be cut down to size just because they are big and successful. They didn't break any laws, didn't break any contracts and yet the cheerleading section of RPF/DU wants to bury it.
> 
> It would only take one sensible, non emotional person on that jury to torpedo the money making scheme of the Doctor.


  Their contract is murky with regard to company employees bumping passengers. I've already provided enough information regarding that. 

   As far as needing a unanimous jury verdict in Illinois that is correct.

----------


## phill4paul

> That already exists.


  Correct. It deals with overbooking. Not being bumped by an employee of the airline.

----------


## osan

> osan, your feeble attempts at damage control make me wonder about the nature of your relationship with UA. Do you want to disclose your holdings pertinent to this company?


I don't know what your deal is here.  You imagine things that do not exist.  "Damage control".  I have no horse in this race.  Your attempts to impugn my honesty aren't going anywhere.  But what perplexes me is why bother... Have I pissed in your cornflakes at some point?  Seriously, I have no argument with you, so why try to pick one with me?  In any event, it will not work.

----------


## juleswin

> Clear some space, so I can send you a PM.


Done

----------


## dannno

> Correct. It deals with overbooking. Not being bumped by an employee of the airline.


Like someone else said, the employees tickets are 'purchased' by the airline, so it's just as overbooked as anything else. In fact, these employees were the most important people to get on the plane because if they didn't, then an ENTIRE flight would have been cancelled the next day, instead of just a few people getting off this flight.

----------


## osan

> How about companies not overbook or throw over seated passengers for employees?


That is United's policy.  There must be some exception for crew shortages... an emergency of sorts.  




> The policies are what have put them in this situation. Article not worth reading? Then don't.


It is an obvious hit-piece.  I don't much go in for those.  If there is a valid argument, make it and keep the cheap and inept innuendo in the pants where it belongs.  How is anything an author writes to be trusted when he cannot or will not set emotion aside and report the facts without editorial interjection?  "How to screw customers".  Please.




> Some airlines will adapt. Others will not.


Well, if they get out of the fare warring mode, perhaps they will be able to adapt... to a point.

Twenty years ago when I flew often, the planes were filled often to capacity with seasoned business flyers.  Then the fare wars started and every lamer in the land decided they were going to fly, fly, fly.  The whole character of the experience changed.  Then came 9/11 and it really went to crap.

The stories wifey brings home about the $#@! people do on flights never ceases to amaze.  Just before going into the hospital, she was on a flight where a woman disrobed to the skin and went to sleep across three seats.  Why can't I ever be on one of those?

That all aside, the tacit implication of your statements is that the sort of adaptation to which you obliquely refer can be undertaken without harm to the business.  I am not convinced it is so.  This is a thin-margin business.  They took in just under $37B in 2016 and their GROSS margin was $2.9B.  Hack uncle Sam's 40% out, that leaves $1.74B, which yields under 5%.  That is NOT a high return, though today I suppose it may now be considered decent.




> Which airline do you think will make the better profit?


Remains to be seen.  I will reiterate: running one of these things is nowhere nearly so easy as some folks seem to think it is.  I suspect many of those, were they to plant their backsides in the CEO's chair, would get all doe-eyed and go immediately catatonic.

----------


## Danke

> Correct. It deals with overbooking. Not being bumped by an employee of the airline.


I have flights next week were I am booked on. I am an employee.

----------


## osan

> And why is that?  We are become a culture of bitter envy.  We used to respect the successful and endeavored to emulate them.  Now many Americans loathe them precisely because they are successful.  It is the marxist mindset running amok.


 They didn't break any laws, didn't break any contracts and yet the cheerleading section of RPF/DU wants to bury it.[/quote]

Now now... don't let facts and truth get in the way of some really good bile and venom.  Hatefulness is next to Godliness these days.  Didn't you get the memo?




> It would only take one sensible, non emotional person on that jury to torpedo the money making scheme of the Doctor.


I am sure the lawyers will make jolly good sure that this never happens.  Heaven forbid.

----------


## phill4paul

> Like someone else said, the employees tickets are 'purchased' by the airline, so it's just as overbooked as anything else.


  Did the airline pay more than paying customers? Obviously the wording of the contract, though factual, is misleading. Would customers have bought the ticket had they known they could be bumped by an airline employee that paid a minimal price for the same seat? Obviously this was a last minute routing for the airlines. It's not like they booked two months in advance. Had they then they would have had time to work on logistics.




> In fact, these employees were the most important people to get on the plane because if they didn't, then an ENTIRE flight would have been cancelled the next day, instead of just a few people getting off this flight.


   "Most important" is subjective. 

   If a relative had been in a wreck and I was told were in their last hours I'd have told the airline to go pound sand. If the airline can't manage their business any better than this they need to change. Or face the repercussions. 

   But, this $#@! is why I don't fly. Even if it was a simple as pre-paying and my money had sat in the airlines coffers for two months they'd have to physically remove me. At the heart of the matter is that a company took my money to get from point A to point B. "If you can't guarantee, don't take the fee." I need to trademark that and send it to Demetrios.

----------


## osan

> I never saw that either, and that is also not the case here with this incident.


United's policy is that positive space always takes precedence over non-revenue.  I've had to drive Bibi to Dulles countless times because she could not get on the flight to get to work.  She has never once displaced a paying customer.  Neither have I.  I've been stuck in plenty of airports this way, and while it sucks, I have still managed to get home OK.

I suspect there must be some exception.  Entire 777 crew falls ill with food poisoning in Munich, you HAVE to get that aircraft in the air.  You bump that many positive spaces with apologies and compensation.  A flight not going off causes serious problems for not only the company, but potentially a few thousands of people.

When we have weather here in CRW, flights from Dulles get cancelled.  Later on, empty aircraft are ferried to CRW so the morning flights will be able to go out and the customers expecting a flight on which to board will not get screwed.

This whole story smells to high heaven.  I find it so hard to understand why it is not the cops who are being excoriated here.

Well, whatever, I suppose.

----------


## Danke

> If a relative had been in a wreck and I was told were in their last hours I'd have told the airline to go pound sand. If the airline can't manage their business any better than this they need to change. Or face the repercussions


There actually are provisions for that scenario.  You'd be the last person not to make a flight.

----------


## phill4paul

> This whole story smells to high heaven.  I find it so hard to understand why it is not the cops who are being excoriated here.



 Absolutely. In no way does my excoriation of airline policy absolve the them. However, who called them in?

  DO NOT CALL THE POLICE.

----------


## Danke

> Absolutely. In no way does my excoriation of airline policy absolve the them. However, who called them in?
> 
>   DO NOT CALL THE POLICE.


Yes, a private firm would have been better, like Blackwater.

----------


## phill4paul

> There actually are provisions for that scenario.  You'd be the last person not to make a flight.


   I did not see that in the contract and, honestly, am tired of being the only person posting that refers to it, finds the correct reference, and posts it.

----------


## Danke

> I did not see that in the contract and, honestly, am tired of being the only person posting that refers to it, finds the correct reference, and posts it.


Experience.


also, If someone came up to me and explained their dire situation, I would do everything thing I could to make sure they are accommodated, that includes delaying the flight for confirmation of their predicament.

----------


## JK/SEA

employees need a ride. The Captain was notified. Attempts to remove a 4th passenger fails, the captain calls the cops. The Airline, and Chicago, will be paying up. My guess it will be settled out of court, and new rules and guidlines will be instituted.

meanwhile, United is taking a beating of their own. It will be interesting to see how they fare down the road.

----------


## phill4paul

> Experience.


  You might be a glorified bus driver. The bestest. But your industry has a serious problem. And you might believe that things will never change even because of this. But, things have _already_ changed. United won't bring cops aboard aircraft to remove passengers anymore. I consider that a win.

----------


## Danke

> You might be a glorified bus driver. The bestest. But your industry has a serious problem. And you might believe that things will never change even because of this. But, things have _already_ changed. United won't bring cops aboard aircraft to remove passengers anymore. I consider that a win.


WTH?

that is wrong on so many levels.

and yes, I can call the cops to kick off a passenger, just like AF could on one of his boats, but I believe he is a trash hauler.

----------


## phill4paul

> employees need a ride. The Captain was notified. Attempts to remove a 4th passenger fails, the captain calls the cops. The Airline, and Chicago, will be paying up. My guess it will be settled out of court, and new rules and guidlines will be instituted.
> 
> meanwhile, United is taking a beating of their own. It will be interesting to see how they fare down the road.


  Captains don't make that call in this situation. Only a suit can call it. It's somewhere in all that legalese I linked.

  Everything else I am right on point with.

----------


## phill4paul

> WTH?
> 
> that is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> and yes, I can call the cops to kick off a passenger, just like AF could on one of his boats, but I believe he is a trash hauler.


  Do you dial 911? Don't get me wrong. I understand that you have Captainship. I'm just asking what the procedure is. Also, in this particular instance did the Captain call the cops? I'm sure he was busy with pre-flight and was only being advised of what was going on. He had other things to contend with besides his cargo.

----------


## osan

> Absolutely. In no way does my excoriation of airline policy absolve the them. However, who called them in?
> 
>   DO NOT CALL THE POLICE.


They are mandated by federal law to call police.  These are not local cops, but DOT police.

----------


## Danke

> employees need a ride. The Captain was notified. Attempts to remove a 4th passenger fails, the captain calls the cops. The Airline, and Chicago, will be paying up. My guess it will be settled out of court, and new rules and guidlines will be instituted.
> 
> meanwhile, United is taking a beating of their own. It will be interesting to see how they fare down the road.


I'd wager the Flight Crew was not involved in this.  We don't get involved in seating arraignments.

----------


## phill4paul

> They are mandated by federal law to call police.  These are not local cops, but DOT police.


  Some codes and law would be appreciated.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'd wager the Flight Crew was not involved in this.  We don't get involved in seating arraignments.


  No. I've already explained this. It was a "suit" decision that got out of hand when the cops were called.

----------


## Danke

> No. I've already explained this. It was a "suit" decision that got out of hand when the cops were called.


You are explaining something to me?  Really?   Oh wait, I'm just a "glorified bus driver."  Got it.

----------


## sparebulb

> You are explaining something to me?  Really?   Oh wait, I'm just a "glorified bus driver."  Got it.


There is no "glory" working in the pointy end of an airliner nowadays.

----------


## phill4paul

> You are explaining something to me?  Really?   Oh wait, I'm just a "glorified bus driver."  Got it.


  Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not make you feel "oh not so so special?" I grew up in an Air Traffic Control family and I've known pilots both commercial and private. 99.9% of the time everything is routine. Commercial pilots have likened themselves as "bus drivers." Private pilots have likened themselves to "chauffeurs." Talk to your fellow aviators if you have a bitch.

----------


## Danke

> There is no "glory" working in the pointy end of an airliner nowadays.


My banker disagrees.

----------


## juleswin

> No. I've already explained this. It was a "suit" decision that got out of hand when the cops were called.


So is it illegal to call the cops now? why does it matter which airline employee called the cops? regardless, he interfered with the activities of the airline staff, that is a federal offense and they called the cops. Forget about the breach of contract he signed with the airline. He broke federal law and that is why the police was called. Case close. 

This is what you get if lady justice was truly blind.

There are so many ways this fella was wrong, its a matter of the airline lairyers to pick the best choice for the case. What I am saying? if this case ever goes to court, it  would not be decided by reason. Its going to end up going to the side the least privilege. Passenger "victim" wins 

This is what you get if lady justice was a SJW, bleeding heart, communist who think contracts document was the toilet paper

----------


## osan

> Some codes and law would be appreciated.


Don't have cites.  This information is relayed via wifey, who can go chapter and verse on the requirements for cabin crews.

----------


## phill4paul

> So is it illegal to call the cops now? (*OF COURSE NOT. THAT IS THE NEW ""GO TO FOR MEDIATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE AIRLINE OPTED FOR.)* why does it matter which airline employee called the cops (*CULPABILITY FOR A LAWSUIT. DUH.*)? regardless, he interfered with the activities of the airline staff (*NO*), that is a federal offense and they called the cops. (*NO IT'S NOT. AS ALREADY EXPLAINED.*)  Forget about the breach of contract he signed with the airline. *He broke federal law*  (*HE DIDN'T*) and that is why the police was called. Case close. (*NOT HARDLY. AS I'VE EXPLAINED.*)
> 
> This is what you get if lady justice was truly blind. (*OPINION. AS ALREADY EXPLAINED.*)
> 
> There are so many ways this fella was wrong, its a matter of the airline lairyers ("*LIARYERS." GET IT STRAIGHT. THEY LIE. THOUGH I SUPPOSE THEY ALSO LAIR*.) to pick the best choice for the case. What I am saying? if this case ever goes to court, it  would not be decided by reason. Its going to end up going to the side the least privilege. Passenger "victim" wins 
> 
> This is what you get if lady justice was a SJW, bleeding heart, communist who think contracts document was the toilet paper   (*OR SOMEONE THAT BELIEVES THAT AFTER PAYING FOR FARE THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY RECIEVE IT.*)


Anything _new_ you'd like to discuss?

----------


## Danke

> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not make you feel "oh not so so special?" I grew up in an Air Traffic Control family and I've known pilots both commercial and private. 99.9% of the time everything is routine. Commercial pilots have likened themselves as "bus drivers." Private pilots have likened themselves to "chauffeurs." Talk to your fellow aviators if you have a bitch.


Damn, just typed out a response and my browser reset on me.

anyway, I get that you don't  respect my profession. I also know why many in the public have perceived  it that way as you do as it is to the advantage for management to denigrate what a pilot contributes ( downplay labor with propaganda). I joke with AF about him on a boat versus ship. But he knows that I know he has my utmost respect for his background, testing, training, retraining, re qualification, etc. and skill to maintain his position.

A bad decision on my part can cost the company millions, maybe billions.   Some say it could bankrupt a company.  Very few high level executives in my company could do that.

The planning and execution we preform with a wide variety of variables to get the aircraft and passenger to their destination safely and comfortably in the most efficient manner possible, is not a bus driver job, sorry.   If it was, I sure an idiot like you could do it.  The pay is good, you should apply.

----------


## juleswin

> Anything _new_ you'd like to discuss?





> SOMEONE THAT BELIEVES THAT AFTER PAYING FOR FARE ACTUALLY RECIEVES IT


The ticket is for a ride from point A to B. The seats are not guaranteed, the time of departure are not guaranteed. They fulfill their end of the deal if they get you to your destination in what they consider to be a reasonable time.

That is the nature of airline tickets and its unfortunate if the general public do not know this.

----------


## phill4paul

> Don't have cites.  This information is relayed via wifey, who can go chapter and verse on the requirements for cabin crews.


 I'd like cites if/when you make an assertion. It's only proper. I've been doing my damndest to cite when making my case. I guess we don't do that around here anymore. Lazy. Sad. Bad business.

----------


## phill4paul

> The ticket is for a ride from point A to B. The seats are not guaranteed, the time of departure are not guaranteed. They fulfill their end of the deal if they get you to your destination in what they consider to be a reasonable time.
> 
> That is the nature of airline tickets and its unfortunate if the general public do not know this.


  Blargh. At least some cites from the legaleeze that I provided. Quit wasting my time. If you can't frame an argument from the relevant document then just shut the $#@! up already. Sad. Bad business.

----------


## phill4paul

> Damn, just typed out a response and my browser reset on me.
> 
> anyway, I get that you don't  respect my profession. I also know why many in the public have perceived  it that way as you do as it is to the advantage for management to denigrate what a pilot contributes ( downplay labor with propaganda). I joke with AF about him on a boat versus ship. But he knows that I know he has my utmost respect for his background, testing, training, retraining, re qualification, etc. and skill to maintain his position.
> 
> A bad decision on my part can cost the company millions, maybe billions.   Some say it could bankrupt a company.  Very few high level executives in my company could do that.
> 
> The planning and execution we preform with a wide variety of variables to get the aircraft and passenger to their destination safely and comfortably in the most efficient manner possible, is not a bus driver job, sorry.   If it was, I sure an idiot like you could do it.  The pay is good, you should apply.


  Thank you for, finally, making it relevant instead of just "I'm a goddamned pilot. I know all about this $#@!. "

  It's not that I don't have respect for you. It's just that I don't think any exceptional amount of respect needs to be showered upon you. Like AF you have a JOB. I've been an Air Traffic Controller. "To provide for the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic." I didn't even have to look that up after 20+ years. It was at it's core...simply a job. I can drive a car. Combining the two I'm pretty sure I could do your job..if...I wanted to do it. You're not Charles Lindbergh.

----------


## Danke

> Thank you for, finally, making it relevant instead of just "I'm a goddamned pilot. I know all about this $#@!. "
> 
>   It's not that I don't have respect for you. It's just that I don't think any exceptional amount of respect needs to be showered upon you. Like AF you have a JOB. I've been an Air Traffic Controller. "To provide for the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic." I didn't even have to look that up after 20+ years. It was at it's core...simply a job. I can drive a car. Combining the two I'm pretty sure I could do your job..if...I wanted to do it. You're not Charles Lindbergh.


Where were you an Air Traffic Controller coordinator?

----------


## Danke

> Combining the two I'm pretty sure I could do your job..if...I wanted to do it.


Lol, there is a pilot shortage, apply.  Not to actually work, just to see if they would accept you.

----------


## specsaregood

wtf are you all arguing about still?

----------


## Danke

> wtf are you all arguing about still?


Shall we denigrate your profession now instead?   I bet a monkey could do what you do.

----------


## specsaregood

> Shall we denigrate your profession now instead?   I bet a monkey could do what you do.


They do all the time, they import them on H1-B visas.  It doesn't mean they are good at it.   

Edit: do they import many h1-b visa monkeys to do your job?

----------


## Danke

> They do all the time, they import them on H1-B visas.  It doesn't mean they are good at it.


Yep. Exactly.

but how many warm bodies are on the line?  Most people don't shop around for the cheapest surgeon.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yep. Exactly.
> 
> but how many warm bodies are on the line?  Most people don't shop around for the cheapest surgeon.


Not many warm bodies, but I could easily destroy millions of dollars of transactions and data with a errant keystroke, many times a day.

What do you think of that passenger shaming website?  You weren't around when a thread about it got posted.
https://www.facebook.com/PassengerShaming

----------


## otherone

> Lol, there is a pilot shortage, apply.


How do you guys see with no window in the cockpit?

----------


## phill4paul

> Lol, there is a pilot shortage, apply.  Not to actually work, just to see if they would accept you.


  Did I mention I wanted nothing to do with the profession? Otherwise I'd be retired ATC now pulling a nice retirement. And if you want to put your money where your mouth is...you pay for it and I'll qualify. If I do not I will pay you back. Deal? LET'S DO THIS!

----------


## Danke

> Did I mention I wanted nothing to do with the profession? Otherwise I'd be retired ATC now pulling a nice retirement. And if you want to put your money where your mouth is...you pay for it and I'll qualify. If I do not I will pay you back. Deal? LET'S DO THIS!


Lol, u r so skilled u passed it up.  Lol

----------


## phill4paul

> Lol, u r so skilled u passed it up.  Lol


  Individuals can do that. No?

  No deal on the bet? You pay full and if I don't complete I'll pay cost +10%. C'mon chicken$#@!. Don't call me out without the back up.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes it is OK to remove a medical profession from a flight. If his time was that important to him, maybe he should have paid for the more expensive ticket.


So people who pay more are entitled to a different set of rules?

----------


## juleswin

> So people who pay more are entitled to a different set of rules?


They are all subjected to the same rule. Its just that there is a pecking order, some people are taken off their seats first. I know it sucks but such is life. If you don't like it, don't fly with them or even better start your won airline and treat your highest paying customer the same way you treat a discount shopper. 

But at least do not sue the business man for the way he decides to run his business after you agree to the rules.

----------


## phill4paul

> They are mandated by federal law to call police.  These are not local cops, but DOT police.


  No calling supervisors? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps Federal Law mandates that. Perhaps it don't. Can you *CITE* me something. Like I've ask for and provided across the breadth of this conversation?

----------


## phill4paul

> They are all subjected to the same rule. Its just that there is a pecking order, some people are taken off their seats first. I know it sucks but such is life. If you don't like it, don't fly with them or even better start your won airline and treat your highest paying customer the same way you treat a discount shopper. 
> 
> But at least do not sue the business man for the way he decides to run his business after you agree to the rules.


  I've already explained their are rules and then there are rules. United's contract is lacking. The "rules" don't specifically stipulate that your fare may be deleted by preferential last minute company employees. I've linked the address. Point it out in the contract. Or shut the $#@! up.

----------


## juleswin

> I've already explained their are rules and then there are rules. United's contract is lacking. The "rules" don't specifically stipulate that your fare may be deleted by preferential last minute company employees. I've linked the address. Point it out in the contract. Or shut the $#@! up.


The reason why you miss it is because you are being too emotional on the topic. The contract doesn't have to specifically mention every possible situation to include that particular scenario. In this case, the employee tickets made the plane to be overbooked/oversold which then trigger the kick out rule.

It doesn't really matter what caused the plane to be overbooked or oversold, the plane just happened to go into it. And please, don't think you mentioning the fact that they are employees getting the ticket would make any difference to me. They all fly with tickets

----------


## timosman

> They are all subjected to the same rule. Its just that there is a pecking order, some people are taken off their seats first. I know it sucks but such is life. If you don't like it, don't fly with them or even better start your won airline and treat your highest paying customer the same way you treat a discount shopper. 
> 
> But at least do not sue the business man for the way he decides to run his business after you agree to the rules.


Is your helmet too tight?

----------


## phill4paul

> The reason why you miss it is because you are being too emotional on the topic. The contract doesn't have to specifically mention every possible situation to include that particular scenario. In this case, the employee tickets made the plane to be overbooked/oversold which then trigger the kick out rule.
> 
> It doesn't really matter what caused the plane to be overbooked or oversold, the plane just happened to go into it. And please, don't think you mentioning the fact that they are employees getting the ticket would make any difference to me. They all fly with tickets


  Links, contractual law, pertinent $#@! besides YOUR "emotional" $#@!? None? Then please keep from killing your credibility here. As if you've ever had any.

----------


## juleswin

> Links, contractual law, pertinent $#@! besides YOUR "emotional" $#@!? None? Then please keep from killing your credibility here. As if you've ever had any.





> Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
> Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
> The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25

I am not exactly sure what I need to prove to you again, but I hope this helps (my credibility )

----------


## phill4paul

> https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25
> 
> I am not exactly sure what I need to prove to you again, but I hope this helps (my credibility )


  The dispensation of priority was not clearly written for airline personnel. Demetrio is gonna shred this contract. You don't need to prove anything. What you profess has been proven wrong. The contract does not stipulate paying customers getting kicked for employees. The airline might have stipulated this bit perhaps bad PR kept them from doing it. I'd nver lay down a coupla thousand, or even a hundred, to go travel. Should airlines run lotteries?

----------


## phill4paul

> WTH?
> 
> that is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> and yes, I can call the cops to kick off a passenger, just like AF could on one of his boats, but I believe he is a trash hauler.


  Well, you're pretty much a government lackey. Your livelihood depends on the system as it is. Sooo. Do  you have a rebuttal or do you recognize that your ass is owned, much in need of Preparation H, and showing?

----------


## juleswin

> The dispensation of priority was not clearly written for airline personnel. Demetrio is gonna shred this contract. You don't need to prove anything. What you profess has been proven wrong. *The contract does not stipulate paying customers getting kicked for employees*. The airline might have stipulated this bit perhaps bad PR kept them from doing it.* I'd nver lay down a coupla thousand, or even a hundred, to go travel. Should airlines run lotteries?*


A ticket is a ticket, it makes no difference if its employee ticket or not. Stop bring it up like it makes a difference and no, the airlines don't need to put that stipulation in the contract, it is common sense.

Also, the chance of you getting removed from your seat due to overselling or overbooking is 0.0004%. Luckily for the airlines, it is a chance most people are willing to take when traveling.

----------


## phill4paul

> A ticket is a ticket, it makes no difference if its employee ticket or not. Stop bring it up like it makes a difference and no, the airlines don't need to put that stipulation in the contract, it is common sense.
> 
> Also, the chance of you getting removed from your seat due to overselling or overbooking is 0.0004%. Luckily for the airlines, it is a chance most people are willing to take when traveling.


 Well. I've presented my case. I actually backed it up with contract law from the source. Changes are going to have to happen. These changes could only have happened because of a lawsuit. I've made my case. I'm pretty much done debating you at this point. I've no wish to win or lose. I do not fly, so I do not care.

----------


## juleswin

> Well. I've presented my case. I actually backed it up with contract law from the source. Changes are going to have to happen. These changes could only have happened because of a lawsuit. I've made my case. I'm pretty much done debating you at this point. I've no wish to win or lose. I do not fly, so I do not care.


Ok, can you please point me to the part where you backed up your argument. 

Also, is one of your problem with the airline because they gave the ticket to their employees?

----------


## phill4paul

> Ok, can you please point me to the part where you backed up your argument. 
> 
> Also, is one of your problem with the airline because they gave the ticket to their employees?


 Go find it yourself. It's there. I'm not gonna re-hash it. Sink or swim. It's on you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not many warm bodies, but I could easily destroy millions of dollars of transactions and data with a errant keystroke, many times a day.
> 
> What do you think of that passenger shaming website?  You weren't around when a thread about it got posted.
> https://www.facebook.com/PassengerShaming


Shame?

I think that is bloody brilliant myself.

I'd would have set it up in a little more remote location though.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> and yes, I can call the cops to kick off a passenger, just like AF could on one of his boats, but I believe he is a trash hauler.


Hey!

Trash hauler???

Yeah, well, actually not far from the truth I guess.

I think our only professional difference of opinion revolves around how long it will be before we both are replaced by computers/robotics/remote operations, rendering all our work, study, testing and training pointless.

At any rate, *obviously*, based on the fallout, United handled this wrong, regardless of who may be right.

I've had recalcitrant, drunk and unruly passengers on vessels of mine before, and managed to deal with it every single time without calling cops.

----------


## phill4paul

> Hey!
> 
> Trash hauler???
> 
> Yeah, well, actually not far from the truth I guess.
> 
> I think our only professional difference of opinion revolves around how long it will be before we both are replaced by computers/robotics/remote operations, rendering all our work, study, testing and training pointless.
> 
> At any rate, *obviously*, based on the fallout, United handled this wrong, regardless of who may be right.
> ...


 Ya mean ya didn't call the cops? Isn't against the law not to call the cops?

----------


## Danke

> Well. I've presented my case. I actually backed it up with contract law from the source. Changes are going to have to happen. These changes could only have happened because of a lawsuit. I've made my case. I'm pretty much done debating you at this point. I've no wish to win or lose. I do not fly, so I do not care.





> Well, you're pretty much a government lackey. Your livelihood depends on the system as it is. Sooo. Do  you have a rebuttal or do you recognize that your ass is owned, much in need of Preparation H, and showing?


Any job in transportation is governed by governments, "the system"?  Yes I could make more in China or the Middle East currently, am I a government lackey there too?  I guess so, how does one every escape not being one in your world?  Living off the land in northern Canada?

i always wanted to be a hair dresser to break free of the man, but even that requires a 1000 hour course...

----------


## timosman

> Any job in transportation is governed by governments, "the system"?  Yes I could make more in China or the Middle East currently, am I a government lackey there too?  I guess so, how does one every escape not being one in your world?  Living off the land in northern Canada?
> 
> i always wanted to be a hair dresser to break free of the man, but even that requires a 1000 hour course...


The sheep should realize who they are and obey all regulations otherwise they may not use any lube next time and you know how it feels ..........

----------


## Danke

> I've had recalcitrant, drunk and unruly passengers on vessels of mine before, and managed to deal with it every single time without calling cops.


Oh really, please tell us as the boat was docked how you handled an unruly passenger that refused to exit your boat.  A lollipop?  This could be a great training video for the whole transportation industry.  You could make millions.

----------


## phill4paul

> Any job in transportation is governed by governments, "the system"?  Yes I could make more in China or the Middle East currently, am I a government lackey there too?  I guess so, how does one every escape not being one in your world?  Living off the land in northern Canada?
> 
> i always wanted to be a hair dresser to break free of the man, but even that requires a 1000 hour course...


  So what I'm hearing from you is...lamentations of the women. The offer stands. +10% if I fail the pilots exam. Put up or shut up.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Oh really, please tell us as the boat was docked how you handled an unruly passenger that refused to exit your boat.  A lollipop?  This could be a great training video for the whole transportation industry.  You could make millions.


Well, sure, in one case while dockside, myself and couple of mates bowed up on the fellow, gave him his money back and told him to get off.

I can recall another case where it was a "domestic" dispute and had to talk a guy down from trying to jump overboard, while at the dock...not very bright.

The other incidents happened at sea.

But no, never ever had to call cops.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, sure, in one case while dockside, myself and couple of mates bowed up on the fellow, gave him his money back and told him to get off.
> 
> I can recall another case where it was a "domestic" dispute and had to talk a guy down from trying to jump overboard, while at the dock...not very bright.
> 
> The other incidents happened at sea.
> 
> But no, never ever had to call cops.


  Danke is trying to pigeon hole your experience to his. I don't think your situation is one of civilian passengers that paid a ticket price for transportation between point A and B.

----------


## phill4paul

@Danke. Put up or shut up ya glorified bus driver.

http://www.beyourowncaptain.com/styled-9/index.html

----------


## timosman

> @Danke. Put up or shut up ya glorified bus driver.
> 
> http://www.beyourowncaptain.com/styled-9/index.html

----------


## osan

> I'd like cites if/when you make an assertion. It's only proper. I've been doing my damndest to cite when making my case. I guess we don't do that around here anymore. Lazy. Sad. Bad business.


So citing the yearly recurrent training of a flight attendant is not valid?  You are suggesting, however implicitly, that crew are being told lies.  I very seriously doubt this to be the case.  Or are you calling my dear wife a liar?  

I'm not here to provide you with epsilon-delta proofs of the veracity of that which I have been told by a person in whom my trust is complete.  If it pleases you to disregard my statements, then please and by all means do so.  I have no horse in this race, save to make some attempt at finding truth, which is why I asked my wife about it in the first place.  This internet phenomenon of having to provide formal proofs of even the most mundane and simple assertions not only hampers productive discourse, I frankly believe it to be a dodge of sorts.

There is a bit of a balancing act between having to prove an assertion by the one making it and having to disprove it if one stands in opposition to it.  There is little to suggest here that any great onus rests with me to do the proving.   I could be wrong on this point, but that is how it seems, and I say it not out of laziness, but out of the practicality of not having to chase the absolute truth beyond that of even God hisownself, just to make even the most modest of points.  Having to produce my own equivalent of Principia Mathematica, a horrendously abstruse three-volume set that devoted hundreds of pages just to "prove" that 1+1=2, every time I opened my mouth on a matter is not going to happen.  This isn't that important to me.  You may take that what I have written on the matter as having been been offered in all good faith and honesty; that my wife is at the top of her game in the business in question and is not given to grave error, lies, or bull$#@! on such matters.  She, too, has no horse in this race.

There is an art to this brand of discourse and I find that few people have even modest abilities at it.  Much of that art is knowing what, when, and how any given tool should be taken out, including the "prove it" knife.  There are by all means times where it is necessary, however, I find that people misuse it so often that it is rapidly losing its value... that is, if the purpose of discourse is to arrive at truth.  It seems to me that "winning" is more important than truth, and it appears to me that people will disingenuously make use of devices such as "prove it" just to put off those with whose views they are in disagreement.  I am not saying you are doing this, but what you have demanded of me is striking suspiciously close to it - close enough to prompt these words.  If I am mistaken, then I am mistaken and I will take your word as a man at face that it is so.  But the point is nonetheless worthy of mention in the more general case because I see this sort of thing going on all the time, the result being not the capture of truth, but the auto-stroking by some of the ego and/or the dishonest endeavoring to "win" no matter what the truth may actually be.

Once again, in case I failed to make the point clearly, I have been given information by a person (my wife) who is trained in these matters every year now for 21 years.  She is honest and intelligent and plays no games of bull$#@! with anyone, a fact that would drive into you like a spike from a giant nail-gun, were you to become familiar with her.  A more honest and genuine human being you will not find in any personage, living or dead.  That is my first-person testament to you on that matter.  The only other possibility that my assertion is false would lie in the fact that the airlines are telling lies to their employees during training - a possibility, yes, but of vanishingly small plausibility for what I would hope are stark and glaringly obvious reasons.  Therefore, unless the point in question is of such immeasurable import that the fate of lives hang on its demonstration right here, right now, I would say that your call for me to provide you with cites goes a bit beyond reason.  Furthermore, if the point is so deeply important to you, I would think that you would have gone and looked it all up yourownself and not even bothered with asking.  That way, were you to discover me to have been in error, you would then have a very large club with which to beat me senseless in the forum of individual credibility - a beating I am willing to submit to in the event my words prove false, however unintentionally.

Pick your battles carefully.  Not every point is worthy of nukes.

----------


## osan

> No calling supervisors? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps Federal Law mandates that. Perhaps it don't. Can you *CITE* me something. Like I've ask for and provided across the breadth of this conversation?


Either I have failed to formulate proper sentences sufficient to communication or you have failed to read properly.  Perhaps both.

Nowhere did I explicitly or implicitly write that supervisors cannot be called in, though the gate agent is probably the top "on the ground" authority in such matters.  They can and are as matters of standard procedure, I would cautiously guess - it's 4:30 and I am NOT waking Bibi up to ask her now, so remind be later if it is important to you and I will ask.  When a situation comes to an impasse and the passenger's behavior is hampering operations in breach of contract, the only option left is police.  Once again I am giving an educated guess, so please don't ask for Prinicipia Mathematica, but I would say that the cabin crew are authorized to use physical force only in the event they are attacked physically.  They are NOT authorized to apprehend and remove passengers, that much I can say with certainty.  Therefore, if they need to remove a man from the aircraft, they are obliged to call police.

Not sure why this is so difficult for you to accept.  Given the nature of the culture these days, does it not make perfect sense that the "state" would interject itself in precisely this manner in these sorts of situations?

----------


## timosman



----------


## Weston White

Seems that the below policy does not really apply, they had already completed the boarding process and there is no apparent mention of bumps for additional flight crew transports--also the flight was not overbooked as defined by the term.  It actually seems that somebody dropped the ball in UA' end and rushed to panic a solution to get a flight crew to their destination at the expense of their customers.




> Contract of Carriage Document
> (revised February 17, 2017)
> 
> RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION
> Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:
> Request for Volunteers
> UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate). The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value. If a Passenger is asked to volunteer, UA will not later deny boarding to that Passenger involuntarily unless that Passenger was informed at the time he was asked to volunteer that there was a possibility of being denied boarding involuntarily and of the amount of compensation to which he/she would have been entitled in that event. The request for volunteers and the selection of such person to be denied space will be in a manner determined solely by UA.
> Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
> Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
> ...


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec24

----------


## Weston White

> That is not how a fair random roll works. Are you telling me that if the plane had been delayed for any other reason, his patient would have died? sorry but just about everybody else thinks their lives and time is equally as important. He doesn't get a pass in this case cos he is a doctor


Which is exactly why that other plane awaiting its flight crew will just have to hold its horses, because I am would not give up my seat to accommodate them and their company's profits at the cost of my inconvenience--in the future perhaps UA should simply schedule its crew staffing and flight plans better.

----------


## specsaregood

> Which is exactly why that other plane awaiting its flight crew will just have to hold its horses, because I am would not give up my seat to accommodate them and their company's profits at the cost of my inconvenience--in the future perhaps UA should simply schedule its crew staffing and flight plans better.


i recall reading elsewhere that it wasn't even a UA crew, but one of their associated airlines.

----------


## CaptUSA

They should just rework their contracts to read, "In the event we decide we need some empty seats, you may be randomly selected for a beat-down; alternatively, you can exit the plane of your own free will."

Problem solved.

----------


## sparebulb

The woman would not give up the seat she purchased for four riders with greater status.

She refused to move and give up her seat.

The employees were just following established policies, ordinances and laws.

Kops were called.

She was arrested, somehow without being dragged off and beaten even though she was non-compliant and contemptuous of the rules and regulations.

Yet some people still call Rosa Parks a hero.

What an uppity snowflake she was.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Wait, I haven't blessed this thread with my signature line yet...
Here it comes...
Are you ready???

Goons gonna goon!!!

----------


## Jan2017

> Maybe Dao's former patients who exchanged gay sex for prescription drugs should sue him for his small salami.


Ya' got a way with words Danke . . .
it's just another way that United Airlines has blown this from the git-go - UAL slandering Dr. Dao with personal info released - 
was it for PR to sway public opinion (?), or that UAL protocol will now be regarding a criminal charge as reason for a 'thinning".

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## Jan2017

>

----------


## phill4paul

> Because they were used to getting away with doing that. And now they will have to rethink that business practice. Sad. Bad business.





> No, it won't change for any airline that needs to reposition crews.  Osan explained the ramifications earlier.  And I tried to a little myself.


   Aherm...




> United Airlines crew members will no longer be able to bump a passenger who is already seated in one of the airline's planes.


 


> A spokesperson for the airline confirms that United has updated its policy "to make sure crews traveling on our aircraft are booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure. This ensures situations like Flight 3411 never happen again."
> 
> If the crew member is not booked an hour before the flight, then he or she will have to wait for the next available flight.
> 
> The policy change effectively means that if there is a need to displace a passenger from a flight, the decision is made before boarding begins.


 


> TMZ quoted an internal email that states, "No must ride crew member can displace a customer who has boarded an aircraft."


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customers

   Internal memo: https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsdes...doc-tmz-01.pdf

  But, what the $#@! do I know? I'm not a pilot.

----------


## juleswin

> Aherm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customers
> ...


Well, I am sure that the Doctor threatning to bring in the Justus system has nothing to do with them changing their mind. Nothing whatsoever.

We have insurance companies agreeing to do more impossible feats like offer insurance to men and women, young and old, sick and health customer premiums at fairly similar price and you think they cannot coerce the airlines to implement a business model that is not profitable? I think Danke forgot about the destructive powers of the courts

Also, isn't it weird that we have people who would condemn you to hell for calling the police but are here cheering you on when you call the even more destructive and powerful justice system.

----------


## tod evans

Meanwhile.............


*Pilot turns around flight from Manchester Airport to Australia so couple could say goodbye to dying grandson*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6979866.html

“They were taxiing on the runway when they got the text message saying their grandson was in intensive care and they needed to get there,” Mrs Stephenson said.

“They passed the message to the crew, who spoke to the captain and he turned the plane back.”

The pilot returned the aircraft to the boarding gate while staff arranged to get the couple’s baggage and assist them back through the airport and collect their car so they could drive straight home.

Their grandson died the following day, 31 March, when the passengers were scheduled to be arriving in Australia.

Mrs Stephenson said the couple, who did not wish to be named, were grateful to have had the chance to say goodbye to their grandson.

[snip]

Etihad are reportedly allowing the couple to re-use the tickets for a future trip to Australia, where they have relatives.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Also, isn't it weird that we have people who would condemn you to hell for calling the police but are here cheering you on when you call the even more destructive and powerful justice system.


You really seem to be struggling between crimes and torts.    Not really sure how to help you with the distinction...

----------


## juleswin

> You really seem to be struggling between crimes and torts.    Not really sure how to help you with the distinction...


A distinction with very little difference. One calls the police when they think their property right is being violated and the other threatens to call the big bad govt courts that have police as henchmen because he thought his rights as a consumer was being violated. And yes, he hasn't called the courts yet but he would do so if the airline do not settle with him. You guys condemn one side but would cheer the other side because.........?

So yea, forgive if I fail to see the big difference between the two sides.

----------


## phill4paul

> A distinction with very little difference. One calls the police when they think their property right is being violated and the other threatens to call the big bad govt courts that have police as henchmen because he thought his rights as a consumer was being violated. And yes, he hasn't called the courts yet but he would do so if the airline do not settle with him. You guys condemn one side but would cheer the other side because.........?
> 
> So yea, forgive if I fail to see the big difference between the two sides.


 Seems to me that to ask forgiveness you missed quite a few threads that explained the difference or in which the difference was discussed. I do not think you have. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I think you are being intentionally obtuse.


Hadn't we established that juleswin is an Eduardo sock puppet?

----------


## timosman

> Hadn't we established that juleswin is an Eduardo sock puppet?


Have we? Not that I would be surprised.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Have we? Not that I would be surprised.


Somebody tipped me off to that a few months back...

----------


## Anti Federalist

*The Small Print vs. The Big Issue*

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...-vs-big-issue/

Charles Goyette	

A couple bought a new home from a Phoenix builder. It was in a nice development, a new and conveniently located community, so attractive that it is not surprising that it was almost sold out.

They sold their old home with a future closing date and made all the other arrangements to move into their new home at the scheduled construction completion date.

When suddenly…

When suddenly the builder rescinded that sale. It turned out that, thanks to the relocation of a major corporate employer, the builder had a chance to sell a large, unspecified number of new homes at once for relocating executives of the employer and it needed the additional house the Phoenix buyers had purchased to complete the big package deal.

It should have been unthinkable, except for that fact that in the voluminous paperwork required in a real estate purchase today – paperwork swollen to indigestible proportions by bureaucrats trying to compensate with regulatory minutiae for all the things that went wrong in the housing bust ten years earlier — there was a term called “involuntary denied occupancy” that allowed the builder “for reasons of compelling economic necessity” to rescind the sale.  Since it was tucked into the contract next to the force majeure clause that would have relieved the builder of performance in the (increasingly likely) event of a nuclear war, the buyers didn’t pay it any particular attention.

Our would-be home buyers probably didn’t break their agreement down into its constituent elements.  They simply thought in terms of the common law that we are all accustomed to.  They thought they had a deal: offer and acceptance and all the rest.

But their reasonable expectation that they had purchased a new home was wrong. They hadn’t.  The contract ruled and they were out of luck.  And out of a home.

Sound crazy? Of course it is.  This entire scenario is so utterly outrageous that by now I’m sure you know that I made the whole thing up, and that it is clear that I am only attempting to offer an imperfect analogy to the forced deplaning of that United Airlines passenger.

I have been both surprised and disappointed to discover that so many of the people I esteem as great defenders of free people and free markets have written to defend United’s right to deny a seat to the holder of a paid ticket.  The “involuntary denied boarding” clause is in the contract, they say, and it rules.  It is in there fair and square, they say, and the passenger should have known it.

*Nobody books a flight and pays for it and is then told by the airline that it will honor the ticket only when it deems it convenient.* 

But that is the practical effect of the “contract of carriage” fine print.

Most of the commentary reasonably objects to the bloody treatment of the passenger, but otherwise it too often defends the airline’s right — not its judgment in doing so, but its right – to unilaterally rescind the purchase and bump its passenger.  Some explain in needless detail all the reasons that airlines overbook flights.  Those reasons are compelling for airlines, but they are a needless and irrelevant sidebar.  Whatever their reasons, however much they value their practice of overbooking flights, airlines should be required to pay the price for it.  They should assume its costs in their business practices.  The economic efficiency of overbooking and bumping passengers can only be known for certain by discovering the real price of getting a passenger to relinquish his seat voluntarily. The price United offered in Chicago wasn’t the real price.  That’s why United resorted to coercion.  It made the passenger “an offer he couldn’t refuse.”

Delta, wishing to avoid an incident like United’s, has decided to offer almost $10,000 to induce passengers to relinquish seats on overbooked flights. I doubt the bidding will often go that high, but who knows?  It’s still cheap to avoid United’s public relations disaster.

Some of the free market champions commenting on the story take solace at the public outcry against the airline, and trust that with either a lower share price or reduced bookings the airline will pay in the marketplace for yanking the traveler off the plane. I agree with them that it is great to see that the market is forcing United and other airlines to review their practices.

My fellow free-marketeers are correct that United Airlines only hurt itself by its thuggish behavior. But these outrages have been going on for a long time; the only reason United has been caught is that the incident was captured on a cell-phone cameras.  How have these airline eviction practices endured?  It is evident from the outcry over the now-viral Chicago video that people are affronted by the airlines’ bumping passengers who are booked on flights.  If the practice is so repugnant, why didn’t competitive forces bring it to a halt years ago?

Let me put it a different way.

How do the airlines get away with it?

The answer is that the State protects them from competition. Commercial air travel today is not a free-market industry.  Disagree?  Try starting an airline.  In an LA Times Op-Ed, Let Richard Branson Kill United Airlines, Matt Welch details some of ways the airlines are protected.

In protecting the crony airlines from competition the State allows them to get away with the intolerable.  And it forces us to tolerate the intolerable.

*But the issue that goes mostly unaddressed in the many defenses of United’s contractual rights is one of casuistry: the clever use of lawyerly reasoning or the exceedingly fine print of legal language and contractual minutiae to subvert the plain meaning of the purchase of a seat on an airline, a new home, or anything else.*

*Nobody here is arguing against a close reading of terms and contracts in complex business deals and agreements. But must we go through the principal activities of our daily lives — shopping, traveling, and all the rest – needing to have a lawyer on speed dial or Black’s Law Dictionary in our hip pockets?  Have you read the fine print that goes with your brokerage account?  Have your assets – which you plainly think are yours – actually been pledged, repledged, hypothecated, or re-hypothecated by the brokerage house? When you clicked “Yes” in the box to download a piece of software, were you really agreeing to be Bill Gate’s towel boy?*

*Here’s an entry on casuistry from the Oxford English Dictionary: “Casuistry destroys by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong.”*

In the spirit of the Easter season I prefer the words of a higher authority who said of such casuistry that it ladens men “with burdens grievous to be borne.”

No matter what they slip into the fine print.

----------


## timosman

The "customers" should require the company to sign a memo of understanding - We can assure you nobody is $#@!ing with you in this finely printed legalese. The only way for us to rescind the agreement is an act of God.

----------


## juleswin

> The woman would not give up the seat she purchased for four riders with greater status.
> 
> She refused to move and give up her seat.
> 
> The employees were just following established policies, ordinances and laws.
> 
> Kops were called.
> 
> She was arrested, somehow without being dragged off and beaten even though she was non-compliant and contemptuous of the rules and regulations.
> ...


Rosa Parks did that on a public busline, disobeying a law set up by the govt which she pays her taxes to. Please spare me with the Rosa Parks comparisons. I thought people on this site respected private property and the right of the owners to set rules of conduct for their property?

If you don't like how UA is conducting their business, maybe you should take your business somewhere else instead of threatening them with daddy govt. What kind of communist drum circle did I just walk into?

----------


## juleswin

> Seems to me that to ask forgiveness you missed quite a few threads that explained the difference or in which the difference was discussed. I do not think you have. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.


I have actually looked and I can't find the thread discussing this difference. Can u please help me out

----------


## timosman

> Rosa Parks did that on a public busline, disobeying a law set up by the govt which she pays her taxes to. Please spare me with the Rosa Parks comparisons. I thought people on this site respected private property and the right of the owners to set rules of conduct for their property?
> 
> If you don't like how UA is conducting their business, maybe you should take your business somewhere else instead of threatening them with daddy govt. What kind of communist drum circle did I just walk into?


The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.

----------


## juleswin

> The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.


Travel options extremely limited? and even if you believe that, how is any of that UAs fault? Also there is this idea that these sort of very affordable services with microscopic chance of inconvenience built into the service wouldn't exist in the free market. The people saying this do not know what they are talking about.

----------


## sparebulb

> Rosa Parks did that on a public busline, disobeying a law set up by the govt which she pays her taxes to. Please spare me with the Rosa Parks comparisons. I thought people on this site respected private property and the right of the owners to set rules of conduct for their property?
> 
> If you don't like how UA is conducting their business, maybe you should take your business somewhere else instead of threatening them with daddy govt. What kind of communist drum circle did I just walk into?


Montgomery Bus Lines was a division of National City Lines.  A private company.

You have gone full dumba$$ rabid retard on this issue.

I don't see why you are so wrapped around the axle on this.

As our friend, Alex, would say:  This is a 360 win.

Dao wins big $$$.

Fellow passengers got a free ride.

Airlines get the fear of regulation and litigation to help remind them that they should treat people with a bit more respect.

Airport kops and psuedo-kops get either a paid vacation or fired.....either is good, depending on perspective.

The only losers are United shareholders for the moment.

Even Oscar Munoz wins.  Even if he is fired, he will wright a book about leadership which will be a bestseller and he will hit the lecture circuit before he is appointed either the head of La Raza or the Department of Transportation.

----------


## timosman

> Travel options extremely limited? and even if you believe that, how is any of that UAs fault? Also there is this idea that these sort of very affordable services with microscopic chance of inconvenience built into the service wouldn't exist in the free market. The people saying this do not know what they are talking about.


Microscopic chance of inconvenience? 
I assume you are not flying very often. I suggest reading this thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nd-Overbooking

----------


## juleswin

> Montgomery Bus Lines was a division of National City Lines.  A private company.
> 
> You have gone full dumba$$ rabid retard on this issue.


Ok, I got it half wrong, the bus line was a private company and not state run. But that still leaves Rosa Park rightfully violating private property to protest an unjust state law. She gets a pass on that, but had the rules about seating come from the company itself, then Rosa Parks would be in the wrong and I as a free market, private property guy would have to condemn her for what she did. 

You might not know this but this is how you operate when you are guided by free market principles. If you don't like the way a private company is running their business, take your business somewhere else

----------


## timosman

> Ok, I got it half wrong, the bus line was a private company and not state run. But that still leaves Rosa Park rightfully violating private property to protest an unjust state law. She gets a pass on that, but had the rules about seating come from the company itself, then Rosa Parks would be in the wrong and I as a free market, private property guy would have to condemn her for what she did. 
> 
> You might not know this but this is how you operate when you are guided by free market principles. If you don't like the way a private company is running their business, take your business somewhere else


Yeah, like a different planet!

----------


## Jan2017

> . . .  don't like how UA is conducting their business, maybe you should take your business somewhere else instead of threatening them with daddy govt.





> The one where the travel options are extremely limited due to the government protectionism. Wakey, wakey. Do it fast Mr. Free Market.


United and United Express 3411 lose the O'Hare - Louisville air route granted by the FAA/goonerment as part of punitive damages to the company in the new lawsuit to hit the books in the second quarters earnings, all while they start flying more and more emptier planes.

Dr. Dao damages aren't that much . . . except then the slander with release of personal info and "priors" to discredit the doctor.

----------


## phill4paul

> I have actually looked and I can't find the thread discussing this difference. Can u please help me out


  No. You have been told how to fish and I'm not going to just give you one.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> United and United Express 3411 lose the O'Hare - Louisville air route granted by the FAA/goonerment as part of punitive damages to the company in the new lawsuit to hit the books in the second quarters earnings, all while they start flying more and more emptier planes.
> 
> Dr. Dao damages aren't that much . . . except then the slander with release of personal info and "priors" to discredit the doctor.


+rep for using the correct term (goonerment) referring to those who feel they need to run our lives...

----------


## Danke

> Aherm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...cing-customers
> ...


You don't have to be a pilot to know how it works.  A flight attendant, gate agent, crew scheduler, manager, etc. know too.

What I said, is there will really not be a change to get a crew in position.  They are addressing a 60 minute cut off for crew scheduling to overbook a flight, which already is an extreme rarity.  Domestic flights don't start boarding until 35 minutes prior, and have a goal to end by 10 minutes prior.  So , as you can see, a passenger can be denied boarding inside 60 minutes.  They should not force one already boarded to disembark for a crew, and until now I have not seen that happen, nor can I find policy for that.  Flights can still be overbooked and passengers denied boarding.  But I sure they will now increase the pay out to get volunteers.

A solution, that was and remains available, is to ask for volunteers.  And up the payout to do so until they get enough to volunteers to fly on a later flight.  So again, no real change.  It was not a policy of United, but a carry over from Continental Airlines to max out compensation at a certain level.  (That is the management team that took over during the merger, and why one sees a small mostly domestic carrier trying to run a large international carrier).   United Airlines finally with new leadership is slowly rebuilding the global product we used to have after the disruption of the merger with an inferior airline.

A "must ride" crew ( a continental airline term) is still going to happen as it protects the integrity of the operations, that effect many more passengers later then a few whom can be bought off now.  So again, no real change. 


Now to the specifics WRT this case.  It appears the crew was not involved.  But certainly could have been if a passenger disembarks with his wife, then runs back on the plane acting erratically.  That is both a security and safety issue.  Federal laws demand I don't allow such a person on board. So again, no real change.  Unless congress wants to change the laws.

----------


## Danke

> *The Small Print vs. The Big Issue*
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...-vs-big-issue/
> 
> Charles Goyette    
> 
> A couple bought a new home from a Phoenix builder. It was in a nice development, a new and conveniently located community, so attractive that it is not surprising that it was almost sold out.
> 
> They sold their old home with a future closing date and made all the other arrangements to move into their new home at the scheduled construction completion date.
> ...


Really not a good analogy. More apropos would be the closing was delayed a day.  And some form of compensation was offered.

And that actually happens all the time without compensation, paperwork not right, finished, bank terms change, etc.

but let's take an airline example, they say by delaying closing to tomorrow you get the same model of home or better and here is check for window dressings,  warranty allowance, etc. See how that works?

----------


## Danke

> United and United Express 3411 lose the O'Hare - Louisville air route granted by the FAA/goonerment as part of punitive damages to the company in the new lawsuit to hit the books in the second quarters earnings, all while they start flying more and more emptier planes.
> 
> Dr. Dao damages aren't that much . . . except then the slander with release of personal info and "priors" to discredit the doctor.



who researched and released his sordid past, you are saying United did?  You have proof?

----------


## Origanalist

> Hadn't we established that juleswin is an Eduardo sock puppet?

----------


## Danke

> 


edurado denies it, juleswin has remained silent..

----------


## Origanalist

> edurado denies it, juleswin has remained silent..


I'm highly doubtful. Seen a lot of his sock puppets, besides, juleswin has been here for a long time. I think the Eduardo would have come out by now.

----------


## juleswin

> edurado denies it, juleswin has remained silent..


Eduardo never really left the forum. He and I has been, is and will forever be a part of this forum. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

----------


## Danke

> Eduardo never really left the forum. He and I has been, is and will forever be a part of this forum. That is all I am going to say on the matter.


This just goes to show ya, perception is reality, unless Suzanimal is involved.

----------


## juleswin

> This just goes to show ya, perception is reality


I thought the saying was "perception is not reality"? But the smart fellas on this site figured that I was sharing account with eddy. Now hope the mods don't catch on to my scam. 

We use VPN, ghost and phase shifter hacks to evade detection and that way, the two of us can still contribute to the discussion on this site. And we could have gotten away with it if not for those pesky, paranoid "see educardo at every corner" pompous posters.

If this happens to be my last post, you guys can always contact me at eduardo/in/the/membrane@take/your/psych/pills.com. Take the / out to send

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Really not a good analogy. More apropos would be the closing was delayed a day.  And some form of compensation was offered.
> 
> And that actually happens all the time without compensation, paperwork not right, finished, bank terms change, etc.
> 
> but let's take an airline example, they say by delaying closing to tomorrow you get the same model of home or better and here is check for window dressings,  warranty allowance, etc. See how that works?


Flew today BOS to MSY via IAH

Had an overbook situation...the gate agents were handling it like it was *plutonium*. 

Bottom line, nobody was left behind, enough people too sore and stiff after running yesterday to get out of bed on time I suppose.

I know I'm being petty and small, but I really do hate the pretentious douchebags hut hutting around with their marathon medals at the airport like they just were awarded a CMH.

As if I couldn't tell you were a marathon runner by your goofy shoes, incandescent clothing and flat chests.

----------


## euphemia

The industry could be deregulated.  Better for everyone.

----------


## Danke

> The industry could be deregulated.  Better for everyone.



1978

----------


## timosman

> 1978


Pan Am

----------


## Suzanimal

> This just goes to show ya, perception is reality, unless Suzanimal is involved.



What did I do?

----------


## Danke

> What did I do?


What didn't you do.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Does this mean Danke is back??

----------


## specsaregood

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business...927-story.html
Woman removed from Southwest plane at BWI Airport after reporting allergy, refusing to leave 




I liked when she said, _"I'm a professor, what are you doing?"_
Guess she thought that was some type of privileged class or something.

----------


## oyarde

> 1978


Those were the days , I would just head down to the local airfield, stop at the bar , get a beer and walk around until I smelled weed then hire my own plane . Then I would negotiate the price down by about half . And no flight plan .

----------


## oyarde

> Does this mean Danke is back??


Yes but he only has part of a soul.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business...927-story.html
> Woman removed from Southwest plane at BWI Airport after reporting allergy, refusing to leave 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked when she said, _"I'm a professor, what are you doing?"_
> Guess she thought that was some type of privileged class or something.


I thought the airlines have said they will no longer be using "police" to remove people from flights anymore unless they are "causing a disturbance".  I guess wanting to get to your destination is now defined as "causing a disturbance"...

----------


## specsaregood

> I thought the airlines have said they will no longer be using "police" to remove people from flights anymore unless they are "causing a disturbance".  I guess wanting to get to your destination is now defined as "causing a disturbance"...


Evidently the pilot thought she was causing a disturbance.  Can't really judge whether that is true based on the video.   Besides, she claimed she had a life threatening allergy, they were doing her a favor.

----------


## oyarde

> I thought the airlines have said they will no longer be using "police" to remove people from flights anymore unless they are "causing a disturbance".  I guess wanting to get to your destination is now defined as "causing a disturbance"...


Well , she will get no sympathy because she came off as a crazy woman . She said she would die because of her allergy yet she did not. Most people lie but most people do not like liars .

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Evidently the pilot thought she was causing a disturbance.  Can't really judge whether that is true based on the video.   Besides, she claimed she had a life threatening allergy, they were doing her a favor.


We have a medical clinic and my wife is the doctor.  I've asked her how many of these "life threatening" allergies she knows of and with involvement in more than 25,000 cases she can't site any.  Oh, I'm sure they are out there but most people's "allergy" is nothing more than a little rash but damn, they are going to make sure no one on the plane gets any peanuts...

----------


## oyarde

I sure would like to have some peanuts with my beer . I blame Danke .

----------


## Danke

> Well , she will get no sympathy because she came off as a crazy woman . She said she would die because of her allergy yet she did not. Most people lie but most people do not like liars .


Crazy woman. You're being redundant again, that's like saying honest Injun.

----------


## oyarde

> Crazy woman. You're being redundant again, that's like saying honest Injun.


I am honest but only because I am supposed to set a good example . Otherwise I could make a killing setting up for a little gambling at the bar .

----------


## Anti Federalist

So the $#@! cop sues United?

How the $#@!...???


*United Airlines Sued Officer Who Dragged Dao Off Plane Says ... I'm Not to Blame!!!*

http://www.tmz.com/2018/04/11/united...ger-david-dao/

4/11/2018 9:56 AM PDT

Chicago Cop Who Dragged Dr. David Dao Off United Flight Sues Airline Over Firing

The officer who violently dragged a United Airlines passenger last year says the airline set him up to take a fall, and he believes he was wrongly fired... according to a new suit.

James Long was one of the Chicago aviation officers seen on video yanking Dr. David Dao off his flight in April 2017, and he's suing United -- along with the Chicago Dept. of Aviation (CDA) -- over losing his job.

In the suit, Long says the airline should have known removing Dao from the flight would require "physical force," and says the CDA didn't properly train him for such situations. He also says the CDA's commissioner defamed him by saying he had acted inappropriately during the incident.

Long wants at least $150k in damages and back pay stemming from his firing. As we reported, 2 officers were fired and another resigned months after Dao's dragging.

----------


## oyarde

I blame Danke

----------


## brushfire

> So the $#@! cop sues United?
> 
> How the $#@!...???

----------


## Danke

> So the $#@! cop sues United?
> 
> How the $#@!...???
> 
> 
> *United Airlines Sued Officer Who Dragged Dao Off Plane Says ... I'm Not to Blame!!!*
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2018/04/11/united...ger-david-dao/
> 
> ...





Kinda funny, it wasn't even a United flight.  But a contracted service provided by Republic Airlines.

And the cops are free to do whatever  they think is appropriate in that situation. Not the airline call how they handle it.   It is their decision how to handle it. It is like me calling the cops about a burglary.  Am I now responsible on how the cops handled the situation?  OK, I'm sure some will say they shouldn't have called the cops.  OK, how do you remove him?  If you read the whole story, it is different than what the media has presented.  Hint, he was actually off the airplane already and ran back in, etc.

----------


## Jamesiv1

didn't the guy some months ago say "they kill me. they kill me. they kill me" same as this guy?  Are people combining the video clips?

----------

