The part where the person has been asked to leave their property and he refuses? He has options besides defying the police. He can sue. He can go to the media. He can take his business elsewhere.
So it is good business practice to rent out your property to somebody and than you have him removed because he is trespassing? Because you want to break your contract with him and are to cheap to pay a serious compensation?
Huh. I don't remember saying that. I think this proves it's quite bad actually. Where I worked in a similar environment as this, we would never have done that. Period.
I think it's been clarified that the employees showed up during/after boarding, not before. They weren't originally expected.
Has it? The report quoted here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1360189&start=450#p19467489
says that they were already looking for volunteers before boarding started. That would suggest the gate agent already knew about the employees. And if that is true I would say there can be zero justification for boarding people and then pulling them off.
At this point I've heard/read so many variations (news stories, quotes, videos, etc) that I don't think it's completely clear. However, as it's evolved I'm thinking that the flight was indeed "overbooked" as the four deadheading flight crew were included in the total, thus they were looking for volunteers. When boarding time arrived and the four hadn't shown up, the gate agent apparently went ahead and boarded everyone. Then, when the four arrived they decided to remove four passengers that had already gotten on. Again, this has been a bit of a grey area but I think that's close to the accepted story right now.
Although UA wants to make it look this way, it was no case over overbooking, as the plane had space for all paying passengers that showed up. It did not have space for 4 additional nonrev passengers that UA needed to be on the plane for operational reasons.
I can't remember but I was thinking someone referred to these as "positive space" vs "nonrev" because they were needed for work in SDF. I think the flight may have technically been overbooked.
Forgive my ignorance about how things work in the USA but from an outsider´s perspective, for a country that prides itself in people above their government, ammendments to their constitution and right to defend themselves, these kind of represive police type incidents when people do really nothing to stand up for the abused is baffling. It always seems to me that honest people in the USA are terrified of authorities, even if authorities abuse their power..
With over 300,000,000 people, I think you will find a wide array of viewpoints. This was 70 people on an aircraft in a situation that they didn't fully know the legalities of. It clearly was received by them as morally wrong, but they probably questioned whether it was legally wrong. However, this passenger has rights and if they were violated then he has recourse in the courts. I'm sure he'll be availing himself of that avenue very soon, as is his right.
People aren't generally dragged off of planes here in an IDB scenario either - that's why this is such a big deal. I think the stars just aligned with all the right (wrong?) players at the wrong place at the wrong time. Bad training. Bad gate agent decision-making. Bad customer decision-making. Bad police training. Bad PR machine.
Ugly, to be sure.
I'm not sure if i understand you correctly but what worries me a bit is that you throw everything together as if it was all the same. What exactly do you call "Bad customer decision-making"? Paying for a ticket, sitting on a plane he was accepted to board and waiting for the airline to fulfill their part of the transportation contract? If so i really don't get your point.
In an earlier post you stated:
4. NOBODY at UA wanted the guy to get a concussion. That was never the goal I'm sure. They just wanted someone with more authority to browbeat this guy off the plane. Unfortunately they just beat him.
Again, maybe i get you all wrong, but i'd like to see your face when someone tells you: "Oh, the stars just aligned and unfortunately you got beat up, sorry man!"
There were no stars aligning in this situation, the airline completely messed it up. As simple as that. No one else to blame.
When I say that the customer had "bad decision-making", I'm not saying he was wrong, but I'm saying that once he chose to defy the police instructions there wasn't going to be a good outcome. Of course it's not his fault that he was put in that situation. United caused this mess. It just never would have been a news story if he had gotten off the plane and raised Holy Hell with them there. I absolutely am not defending how United handled this from beginning to end.
I'm at a loss on where you get that I'm brushing off his injuries, but I'll just assume I was not making a clear point at 3am.
His wife was travelling with him and was seated three seats behind him, strange why nor together.
It's only strange if you want it to be strange. As stated, he paid around the lowest of anyone on the plane for his ticket, and he quite likely booked close-in. As stated in another thread, when I booked a trip for my wife and I next week, I waited until last week to do so. For our return, nearly every airline's flights had only random middle seats left. I finally found a flight with two seats together, but many people just have to suck it up and realize that booking cheaply and/or last minute means you might not have the best choice of seats.
I don't know UA's policies but when LH, for example, accepts you to board they can not simply force you off the plane again as long as you're not unruly, violent, a wanted terrorist etc.
I think there is a lot of confusion about legal rights, airline policies, etc. They are getting mixed in with purported facts as well as high emotions. That is making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this story. Clearly United screwed up royally by boarding these people then forcing some to get off, but whether it's legal or against a policy is still somewhat muddy.
So I have not caught up on every post, but I have read Oscar's letter to employees. Are his statements not contradicted by statements from the passengers? The claim is the crew did not show up for seats until after boarding. But passengers indicate they sought volunteers BEFORE boarding. So that makes no sense.
Also, the claim is $1,000 was offered (no indication of cash or vouchers). The passengers have indicated that the top offer was $800.
My take is, the crew was likely late. They knew thew would be overbooked if the crew showed, so they sought volunteers and got no one. When boarding time came and no crew was there, they boarded everyone. Then, before the doors were closed, the missing crew turned up. Now they had to remove 4 passengers. A manager may have authorized an increase in compensation, but this message never made it to the passengers.
If that is the case, then there were clearly issues. They should have kept the IDB candidates off the plane until the last possible second if they were going to wait for the crew.
I think this all sounds plausible. I've been there, also. Passengers (non-airline) don't show up so you board last-minute "stand-by's", only to have the customer come running up. Now what? The stand-by's have been billed and are on board, but the people who had also paid for those seats are here now. U-G-L-Y. Of course, it was never a crew person/employee who was bumping a paying passenger, but still not good.
Oh, and "pay the man per IDB rules"? You mean the paltry 400% of the one way fare? Bet that ~$400 was worth nothing to him. Heck, I bet the fast talking agents would try to offer him vouchers first and claim he was a volunteer. IDB compensation rules need a major overhaul. It should not be $1,350 max. It should be $1,350 MINIMUM to start. Time to start realizing everyone's time is important, not just refundable fare passengers and those with status.
I think that there's a good case right now to lobby for changes to the IDB rules.
Good time to do that livery update?
If any man would know you would.
I bet they're glad they waited now.
Someone suggested that the whole plane be deplaned and then all reboarded -4, which sounds good until you factor in that this might have timed out the crew and meant nobody goes.
However it was in fact deplaned and then all reboarded.
Obviously. like everything else with this flight, that was never the plan. It was the poor guy's blood that caused the delay/deplaning.
Again, the only reason this is national news is because of the criminal actions of the doctor leading to a conflict.
I would bet money that many hundreds of thousands of people disagree with you. The conflict existed well before any potential criminal action by the doctor, and it was not of his doing.
The point is that it only made [inter]national news because the doctor refused to deplane. And no, I'm not "blaming" him, I'm just making a statement of fact.
One thing I still don't get is this: Why did it had to be THAT seat? When it was obvious that the doctor wasn't having it, why didn't the agent try to find another passenger more willing (even though nobody took the offer to volunteer in the first place) and be done? The doctor said he had patients in the morning to care to, ok, we'll find another seat. Why was the agent so hell-bent on getting THAT seat that it was worth all this scandal? Such lack of judgement.
1. They had already looked for "volunteers" - no takers.
2. As stated several times in this thread, they have a system in place that automatically selects those needing to be deboarded.
3. I would imagine there were other people on that Sunday evening flight who had work the next morning - why is him being a doctor an automatic pass?
4. If you were a passenger, and you heard them tell him to get off, and he said "Oh, I'm a doctor", so they came to you and said "Get off", and you said "But I'm a retail manager" and they said "Who give's a crap - get off" - you'd probably see it a bit differently in the moment.
I never understand why would United selling tickets to minorities and colored people if they think themselves a Caucasian airlines? All 4 passengers selected are Chinese citizens! What an coincident! On flights to Asia, Asian passengers are collectively assigned seats in the middle and at the very back of the aircraft regardless how early you check-in. This incidents clearing showing Americans are completely hypocrite with no respect of basic human rights. No foreigners, regardless of your skin color, receives differential treatment on all Chinese carrier or in the country - that is the country which should be the global model when it comes to respect in human rights.