Overthecascades wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wstakl wrote:

Choose four Asians because typically they don't make a fuss and aren't confrontational....yet this one guy did. Christ just imagine if it was four black people who they 'randomly' selected to be kicked off. DISCRIMINATION! I bet whoever made the decision was instructed or decided themselves not to select black people.

I would delete this as it isn't based on anything other than personal emotion and bias,

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Cerecl wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

4 people were asked to leave the aircraft. 3 complied.

So those 3 get $800 and this guy gets $1 million?

He gets $1m because he was targeted by UA staff because of how much he paid for his ticket and possibly his race. He was put in a difficult spot because UA staff wanted to save $700 and didn't care about delaying passengers for almost 24hrs. He was assaulted by police who should never have been used for this purpose. He probably sustained some sort of brain injury which may be career-terminating, and now has all his past published on national media. If he is an actively practising doctor I would say $1m is not a good deal and he should sue for much more!

You can stop the made up racism claims at any time. Are you Asian or just an SJW?
United did not command police officers to assault him, however his actions certainly facilitated it.
If being convicted of felonies involving prescription pain killers hasn't stopped his career, I doubt this will.

wstakl wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

wstakl wrote:

Choose four Asians because typically they don't make a fuss and aren't confrontational....yet this one guy did. Christ just imagine if it was four black people who they 'randomly' selected to be kicked off. DISCRIMINATION! I bet whoever made the decision was instructed or decided themselves not to select black people.

I would delete this as it isn't based on anything other than personal emotion and bias,

Nope....freedom of speech and all that. I hope the four crew who took the seats felt guilty. I would have jeered them and gave them shit the whole damn flight.

Sorry, wstakl... While I agree with much of your sentiment here, a forum like this isn't protected under US "freedom of speech" laws. I don't want posts deleted, but this isn't a defense.

Cerecl wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I would delete this as it isn't based on anything other than personal emotion and bias,

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

By random, I think they mean by machine and not the gate agent using their own judgment. Price paid, when they purchased it, FF status are, I believe, some of the criteria used.

zippy wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

zippy wrote:

UA 3411 is scheduled to depart at 5:40pm. I listed ten flights that are scheduled later, one flight that would've departed around the same time, and an air taxi service.

And they have certain rest requirements, so 9 pm flights arent really an option. Plus, considering they were offering customers a 3 pm flight the next day, those flights were probably sold out.

Take a look at the list I posted twice. Plenty of flights before 9pm (on United and on other carriers). Hell, even IF the 9pm flight was the only option, put the passengers on the later flight and offer up more cash. Plenty of ways to avoid giving your paying customers a traumatic brain injury. Looks like paying full-fare last minute doesn't really guarantee you much with United:

http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus ... story.html

Yup, and there was an option at 540 pm which was their right to utilize. They could have been going on very minimum rest and anything later and they wouldn't have been good for the next flight.
Having worked at AirTrash, you should know all about crew scheduling messes and late departures.
I used to love telling people who came to the airport "sorry you're going to misconnect in Atlanta and there are no more flights. We'll rebook you for tomorrow." and then have to tell them the exact same thing the next day. What a mess that airline was. Maybe you wouldn't understand keeping the integrity of an operation. Never mind.

OSUk1d wrote:

AusA380 wrote:

Calder wrote:

He should be banned, he has shown he is not willing to abide by the contract of carriage.

Actually it seems you're wrong. Under United's contract of carriage there are 2 rules that apply, and United seems to have applied them inappropriately:

Rule 25 pertains to denial of boarding, which includes things such as overbooking - but there's nothing in Rule 25 that applies to passengers once boarded.

Rule 21 pertains to refusal of transport, including removal of passengers from aircraft. But the scope of Rule 21 is much narrower and applies to unruly passengers, intoxicated passengers, medical concerns, etc. nothing about overbooking or the need to free up seats to accommodate airline employees.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Cerecl wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I would delete this as it isn't based on anything other than personal emotion and bias,

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

I think the only way UA could have handled this situation any worse is if they'd flat out blamed the passenger. I'm quite saddened to see so many posters expressing support for the actions undertaken by UA and the police. I'm even more saddened by those blaming the victim, calling him a clown, etc. The entire episode was totally inappropriate. People keep saying "there's more to the story." Well the video sure tells its own story, and the way that man was dragged off the plane was absolutely inappropriate, end of story. And yes, in spite of the protestations of some on here, this is UA's fault. I don't care that it's a subcontractor. It's sold as a UA flight, it says United on the side of the aircraft, and for all intents and purposes its presented as a UA flight. This is all UA.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

Because, race. :-/

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

I thought nobody volunteered, and those were just the three of the four that were picked?

remcor wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

AusA380 wrote:

Actually it seems you're wrong. Under United's contract of carriage there are 2 rules that apply, and United seems to have applied them inappropriately:

Rule 25 pertains to denial of boarding, which includes things such as overbooking - but there's nothing in Rule 25 that applies to passengers once boarded.

Rule 21 pertains to refusal of transport, including removal of passengers from aircraft. But the scope of Rule 21 is much narrower and applies to unruly passengers, intoxicated passengers, medical concerns, etc. nothing about overbooking or the need to free up seats to accommodate airline employees.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Actually, it doesn't seem I'm wrong. If you read it, it doesn't say anything about being on or off the plane. So I'm not even sure what your point is. He was denied boarding when he was deboarded. He chose to do it the hard way.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wouldn't blame United for this.

Did they overbook the flight? Yes
Did they offer compensation? Yes
Did they have to remove pax? Yes

United is no different from any other airline in any of the 3, this could just as easily have happened on DL and AA and neither would have any control over it. The US3 all overbook and there is an economically sound reason for it...

I blame the police 110%.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the pax says or what company policy is, if you're the officer, the situation is completely in your hands and if you injure a pax, y.

Did they have to remove the passenger? - hell no, they sold him a ticket to fly from A to B, in any other line of business inserting fine print that states otherwise is considered fraud.
Way the police to blame? - Yes, they used excessive force. But they were misinformed. They were told united needs help dealing with an unruly passenger. Nobody told them the customer was sitting quitely until someone tried to rob him of something he paid for.

DLP

OA412 wrote:

I think the only way UA could have handled this situation any worse is if they'd flat out blamed the passenger. I'm quite saddened to see so many posters expressing support for the actions undertaken by UA and the police. I'm even more saddened by those blaming the victim, calling him a clown, etc. The entire episode was totally inappropriate. People keep saying "there's more to the story." Well the video sure tells its own story, and the way that man was dragged off the plane was absolutely inappropriate, end of story. And yes, in spite of the protestations of some on here, this is UA's fault. I don't care that it's a subcontractor. It's sold as a UA flight, it says United on the side of the aircraft, and for all intents and purposes its presented as a UA flight. This is all UA.

He is a victim of his own refusal to comply with instruction.

It really is an amazing example of how, not only from crashes, a succession of events can lead to one big event.

dlphoenix wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I wouldn't blame United for this.

Did they overbook the flight? Yes
Did they offer compensation? Yes
Did they have to remove pax? Yes

United is no different from any other airline in any of the 3, this could just as easily have happened on DL and AA and neither would have any control over it. The US3 all overbook and there is an economically sound reason for it...

I blame the police 110%.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the pax says or what company policy is, if you're the officer, the situation is completely in your hands and if you injure a pax, y.

Did they have to remove the passenger? - hell no, they sold him a ticket to fly from A to B, in any other line of business inserting fine print that states otherwise is considered fraud.
Way the police to blame? - Yes, they used excessive force. But they were misinformed. They were told united needs help dealing with an unruly passenger. Nobody told them the customer was sitting quitely until someone tried to rob him of something he paid for.

DLP

How do you know what they were informed?

OSUk1d wrote:

He is a victim of his own refusal to comply with instruction.

Spare me the claptrap. Refusing to comply does not mean you should be knocked out, bloodied, and dragged off the plane like a rag doll.

gaystudpilot wrote:

Oscar's response was awful.

Hey, Oscar, man up and be a leader!

How about...
"What I saw today was disgusting and deeply saddened me. No human being should be treated like that, anywhere, by anyone. We are working very hard to understand what led to this horrific situation and ensure what happened is corrected in a way that this never happens again at a United facility or on a United aircraft."

Thanks Oscar for manning up. This is how you should have responded the first time. I look forward to April 30th -- you have a lot of splainin' to do... as well as a lot of work cut out for you to end the customer-toxic culture at UA that has existed for years!


The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

PlanesNTrains wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

Because, race. :-/

Why can't Asians volunteer to be taken off a flight?

transswede wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

I thought nobody volunteered, and those were just the three of the four that were picked?

3 volunteered

727LOVER wrote:

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG !!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLBuiC1z6Kw

This has me cackling!

wstakl wrote:

Choose four Asians because typically they don't make a fuss and aren't confrontational....yet this one guy did. Christ just imagine if it was four black people who they 'randomly' selected to be kicked off. DISCRIMINATION! I bet whoever made the decision was instructed or decided themselves not to select black people.

It appears to be two couples. Probably lowest fare or intelligent gate agent thought they were a group. 3 passengers agreed to leave is IMHO PR BS, because his wife is one of those four.

Also now there is clarity about following crew instructions, passengers need to follow lawful crew instructions.

OA412 wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

He is a victim of his own refusal to comply with instruction.

Spare me the claptrap. Refusing to comply does not mean you should be knocked out, bloodied, and dragged off the plane like a rag doll.

Oh, now he was knocked out? I guess they should have just had a staring contest and sat there all night.

So, this has triggered as many posts here in the same time period as a significant and deadly air crash. The volumes of comments here, all over international media, says a lot about the airline industry, not just UA, and flyers in the worst way.

The crew was likely deadheading to take another flight.

What are the odds that the airlines lose the right to involuntarily deny boarding.

OSUk1d wrote:

remcor wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Actually it seems you're wrong. Under United's contract of carriage there are 2 rules that apply, and United seems to have applied them inappropriately:

Rule 25 pertains to denial of boarding, which includes things such as overbooking - but there's nothing in Rule 25 that applies to passengers once boarded.

Rule 21 pertains to refusal of transport, including removal of passengers from aircraft. But the scope of Rule 21 is much narrower and applies to unruly passengers, intoxicated passengers, medical concerns, etc. nothing about overbooking or the need to free up seats to accommodate airline employees.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Actually, it doesn't seem I'm wrong. If you read it, it doesn't say anything about being on or off the plane. So I'm not even sure what your point is. He was denied boarding when he was deboarded. He chose to do it the hard way.

Good luck convincing any judge or jury anywhere that he was denied boarding of the plane. He was allowed boarding, and then removed after the fact. As much as you and Oscar want it to be, in the eyes of any courtroom it was not a IDB, it was an involuntary removal after boarding by blunt force.

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

4 people were asked to leave the aircraft. 3 complied.

So those 3 get $800 and this guy gets $1 million?

He gets $1m because he was targeted by UA staff because of how much he paid for his ticket and possibly his race. He was put in a difficult spot because UA staff wanted to save $700 and didn't care about delaying passengers for almost 24hrs. He was assaulted by police who should never have been used for this purpose. He probably sustained some sort of brain injury which may be career-terminating, and now has all his past published on national media. If he is an actively practising doctor I would say $1m is not a good deal and he should sue for much more!

You can stop the made up racism claims at any time. Are you Asian or just an SJW?
United did not command police officers to assault him, however his actions certainly facilitated it.
If being convicted of felonies involving prescription pain killers hasn't stopped his career, I doubt this will.

I did say "possibly". Give me conclusive evidence race played no role and I will delete the "possibly his race" bit
I am an Asian, however I don't think you have any grounds of labeling other people SJW unless you have intimate knowledge of how the 4 people were picked. I am guessing you don't. My sympathy is with the passenger, I would have written exactly the same thing if he were an afro-American or Tongan.
UA created the situation and used the police force inappropriately. This guy did not break any law-this has been covered extensively I don't want to go into an argument about absolutely control and UA can do whatever they want on their plane.
As long as he is not deregistered he is an active practitioner. He just needs to get a MRI scan of his brain and any tiny change that can be reasonably associated with trauma will mean UA pay out much more.

gatibosgru wrote:

It really is an amazing example of how, not only from crashes, a succession of events can lead to one big event.

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

Passedv1 wrote:

The crew was likely deadheading to take another flight.

What are the odds that the airlines lose the right to involuntarily deny boarding.

They should lose the right to remove passengers once boarded for non-security reasons (i.e. Drunkeness, disorderly, etc.) or flight safety issues (i.e weight imbalance, sick passenger, etc.). Once someone is in their seat, they should not be allowed to be removed for another passenger.

Simply put, IDBs should only be allowed at the gate, and the $ cap needs to be much higher.

kavok wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

remcor wrote:

Actually it seems you're wrong. Under United's contract of carriage there are 2 rules that apply, and United seems to have applied them inappropriately:

Rule 25 pertains to denial of boarding, which includes things such as overbooking - but there's nothing in Rule 25 that applies to passengers once boarded.

Rule 21 pertains to refusal of transport, including removal of passengers from aircraft. But the scope of Rule 21 is much narrower and applies to unruly passengers, intoxicated passengers, medical concerns, etc. nothing about overbooking or the need to free up seats to accommodate airline employees.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Actually, it doesn't seem I'm wrong. If you read it, it doesn't say anything about being on or off the plane. So I'm not even sure what your point is. He was denied boarding when he was deboarded. He chose to do it the hard way.

Good luck convincing any judge or jury anywhere that he was denied boarding of the plane. He was allowed boarding, and then removed after the fact. As much as you and Oscar want it to be, in the eyes of any courtroom it was not a IDB, it was an involuntary removal after boarding by blunt force.

Due to lack of a seat. That's denied boarding.
And no United employee used any force. Take it up with the police. Generally, if you do what they say they don't need to use force.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

transswede wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

I thought nobody volunteered, and those were just the three of the four that were picked?

3 volunteered

It's already been stated, quite a bit up thread, to be honest, by someone who was on the flight, that nobody volunteered to disembark.

It would appear that this is an interpretation of the old, get the lads on parade, ask for 3 volunteers: "You, you and you", as being something other than the airline having selected 4 PAX and 3 of those four going along with the airline's decision.

The whole idea that the passenger was being disruptive and breaching the COC's is very similar to that in the late, great, Sir Terry Pratchett's satirical novel, "Pyramids", in which one of the late King's handmaidens is sentenced to be thrown to the sacred crocodiles, for refusing to drink poison and be buried with the KIng. It is entirely voluntary that she should do so, but she is sentenced to death for refusing to volunteer.

ltbewr wrote:

So, this has triggered as many posts here in the same time period as a significant and deadly air crash. The volumes of comments here, all over international media, says a lot about the airline industry, not just UA, and flyers in the worst way.

How so?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

It really is an amazing example of how, not only from crashes, a succession of events can lead to one big event.

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

OSUk1d wrote:

AusA380 wrote:

Calder wrote:

The situation obviously should never have been escalated the way it was. Some front line employees and lower level managers will be looking for new jobs, United/Republic will be cutting a big check, and the man who refused to leave will not likely be flying on United metal for a long time.

I think if United were to ban this doctor, that would only make the PR another step worse.

He may choose Not to Fly United, which a lot of people on social media are saying today.

He should be banned, he has shown he is not willing to abide by the contract of carriage.

Screw the carriage of contract in this situation. These bullies should have shown emotional intelligence.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

All four were Asian? I thought it was random picked by computer???

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

Because if this the case it strongly suggests racism. How likely it is that 4 "randomly" selected passengers were all Asian? Just imagine the outcry in UA's Asian destinations-"When we run into problems you get thrown off first".

dtw2hyd wrote:

It appears to be two couples. Probably lowest fare or intelligent gate agent thought they were a group. 3 passengers agreed to leave is IMHO PR BS, because his wife is one of those four.

It's possible - based on what some have said - that he (they) initially agreed to be IDB'd and left his (their) seats, but when he (they) found out they it wouldn't be until 2pm the next day before seats were available, he (they) decided to retake their seats. She like most people complied for her own reasons, but he ... well, we know where it went from there.

Passedv1 wrote:

The crew was likely deadheading to take another flight.

What are the odds that the airlines lose the right to involuntarily deny boarding.

It wasn't "likely". It was the entire reason this whole thing started.

KanaHawaii wrote:

One can pin this whole thing on one date and action: Oct. 24, 1978, the Airline Deregulation Act. It was then that airlines were no longer run by the CEO, telling his accountants what to do. The whole circus of running an airline was turned upside down on that day, with the word of the accountants being more important than just about everyone else in the airline. You want to know why someone got dragged out of an airplane on some random Sunday? Because at the end of the day, in some basement at United's headquarters on Wacker Drive in Chicago, a beancounter determined that a crew needed to be deadheaded, a flight needed to pay out only so much for volunteers and come hell or high water that plane needed to leave on time.

When airlines are again run by guys who started off as bag handlers and lav service personnel and not by a bunch of MBA's and Accounting Degree holders who think that it is enough to bust open the accounting book to determine how to run an airline, than maybe this nonsense is going to stop.

I bed to differ,
You can trace this to the regulation that was not removed in 1978 which allows airlines partial immunity from overbooking.
People can sue their physicians, insurance agents, they can even sue MacDonald's for burns sustained while drinking hot coffee, but they cannot sue airlines for damages caused by not delivering what they sold (and to all the CoC band: They are selling airline tickets, not raffles for an airline ticket). One this protectionism is removed airlines will make sure that every paying passenger is accommodated.

BTW - airlines charge as much as customers are willing to pay, ticket prices will not increase due to the implementation of fair practices.

Happy (and hopefully concusion-less) travel
DLP

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

He gets $1m because he was targeted by UA staff because of how much he paid for his ticket and possibly his race. He was put in a difficult spot because UA staff wanted to save $700 and didn't care about delaying passengers for almost 24hrs. He was assaulted by police who should never have been used for this purpose. He probably sustained some sort of brain injury which may be career-terminating, and now has all his past published on national media. If he is an actively practising doctor I would say $1m is not a good deal and he should sue for much more!

You can stop the made up racism claims at any time. Are you Asian or just an SJW?
United did not command police officers to assault him, however his actions certainly facilitated it.
If being convicted of felonies involving prescription pain killers hasn't stopped his career, I doubt this will.

I did say "possibly". Give me conclusive evidence race played no role and I will delete the "possibly his race" bit
I am a Asian, however I don't think you have any grounds of labeling other people SJW unless you have intimate knowledge of how the 4 people were picked. I am guessing you don't. My sympathy is with the passenger, I would have written exactly the same thing if he were an afro-American or Tongan.
UA created the situation and used the police force inappropriately. This guy did not break any law-this has been covered extensively I don't want to go into an argument about absolutely control and UA can do whatever they want on their plane.
As long as he is not deregistered he is an active practitioner. He just needs to get a MRI scan of his brain and any tiny change that can be reasonably associated with trauma will mean UA pay out much more.

You have zero evidence that race did play a role. Yet that doesn't stop you from implying it. There is however a method to determine who is denied, and it has nothing to do with race or occupation.

kavok wrote:

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

Ya, ok.

Cerecl wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

As far as I can see whether all four passengers were Asian is not confirmed, although if it is the case UA is in even deeper trouble. The pick however was not random. There was an eyewitness account that the passenger was told he paid the lowest fare therefore he had to go.

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

Because if this the case it strongly suggests racism. How likely it is that 4 "randomly" selected passengers were all Asian? Just imagine the outcry in UA's Asian destinations-"When we run into problems you get thrown off first".

You're letting your emotions decide what happened. You have no idea how the decision was reached, who was selected for what reasons, etc. None. Absent the truth, you are just stirring the pot with your assumptions.

11725Flyer wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue.

The story is an utterly routine day at the airport. Other than the fact that a licensed doctor was an irate passenger and needed to be helped off the aircraft. Any injuries sustained were his responsibility. Emphatically.

UAL will settle because as another poster said, they do not want to risk changing longstanding process has evolved for 50+ years and works well.

Do you still think it was an "excellent memo"?

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3 ... 68629.html

Let me explain, yes it was an excellent memo. It told a consistent, true story of how the industry operated, quite effectively, and I think fairly, for many many years. People have been arrested off of planes many times. They often feel very mad and swear to "sue the airline!!!" Moreover, by all known legal frameworks, this guy was wrong. He did break the rules, it's confusing, but he did. Nobody has argued otherwise previously - that denied boarding can't happen on a plane. That a flight crew can't unseat paying passengers. That police can't touch passengers or move them unless they are hit first. These are new ideas.

The country and the world were outraged yesterday. Lawyers now re-interpret that you don't really have to do what the airline says, that much of the customary process is invalid. The boarding process must become more political, less technical, more feelings oriented. Nobody cares about airline jargon, so stuff it. Airlines are glorified hotels now. The people demand this, so hey, the world changed.

OSUk1d wrote:

remcor wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Actually it seems you're wrong. Under United's contract of carriage there are 2 rules that apply, and United seems to have applied them inappropriately:

Rule 25 pertains to denial of boarding, which includes things such as overbooking - but there's nothing in Rule 25 that applies to passengers once boarded.

Rule 21 pertains to refusal of transport, including removal of passengers from aircraft. But the scope of Rule 21 is much narrower and applies to unruly passengers, intoxicated passengers, medical concerns, etc. nothing about overbooking or the need to free up seats to accommodate airline employees.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Actually, it doesn't seem I'm wrong. If you read it, it doesn't say anything about being on or off the plane. So I'm not even sure what your point is. He was denied boarding when he was deboarded. He chose to do it the hard way.

Actually actually - I still think you're wrong. As explained by the helpful law person:

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.

Bottom Line: United's need to position a crew at last minute is a cost of doing business. It should not come at the expense of their paying customers. United tried to do this on the cheap. They should have kept upping the offer until they had the necessary volunteers. That should be the ultimate outcome of this incident. Airlines should no longer be allowed to disembark passengers for a deadheading crew. Period. They can and should solicit volunteers by offering increased compensation until they have secured the needed space. That will be the market value of having to reposition crews.

kavok wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

It really is an amazing example of how, not only from crashes, a succession of events can lead to one big event.

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

so you'd rather cancel a whole flight the next day than inconvenience four people on that flight?

OSUk1d wrote:

kavok wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Actually, it doesn't seem I'm wrong. If you read it, it doesn't say anything about being on or off the plane. So I'm not even sure what your point is. He was denied boarding when he was deboarded. He chose to do it the hard way.

Good luck convincing any judge or jury anywhere that he was denied boarding of the plane. He was allowed boarding, and then removed after the fact. As much as you and Oscar want it to be, in the eyes of any courtroom it was not a IDB, it was an involuntary removal after boarding by blunt force.

Due to lack of a seat. That's denied boarding.
And no United employee used any force. Take it up with the police. Generally, if you do what they say they don't need to use force.

His boarding pass was scanned and he was allowed to walk to an assigned seat on the plane. That is called boarding. You can call it whatever you want, but the point is any judge or jury will interpret that as boarding. And thus because he was boarded, he was not denied boarding.

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

You can stop the made up racism claims at any time. Are you Asian or just an SJW?
United did not command police officers to assault him, however his actions certainly facilitated it.
If being convicted of felonies involving prescription pain killers hasn't stopped his career, I doubt this will.

I did say "possibly". Give me conclusive evidence race played no role and I will delete the "possibly his race" bit
I am a Asian, however I don't think you have any grounds of labeling other people SJW unless you have intimate knowledge of how the 4 people were picked. I am guessing you don't. My sympathy is with the passenger, I would have written exactly the same thing if he were an afro-American or Tongan.
UA created the situation and used the police force inappropriately. This guy did not break any law-this has been covered extensively I don't want to go into an argument about absolutely control and UA can do whatever they want on their plane.
As long as he is not deregistered he is an active practitioner. He just needs to get a MRI scan of his brain and any tiny change that can be reasonably associated with trauma will mean UA pay out much more.

You have zero evidence that race did play a role. Yet that doesn't stop you from implying it. There is however a method to determine who is denied, and it has nothing to do with race or occupation.

There is, as I wrote, yet unsubstantiated claim then 4 passengers removed were all Asians, so not zero evidence. You give me the race of the 4 passengers, and if they are not all (or majority) Asian, I will delete the part in my post about race. Unless you are involved in the decision making of which 4 to remove, how can you be so certain race played no role??

OSUk1d wrote:

kavok wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

so you'd rather cancel a whole flight the next day than inconvenience four people on that flight?

Yes, I would. And here is why: It was not the gate agents fault that the United flight would be cancelled the next day. That cause primarily rests with whoever scheduled that four person crew, and for not sending notification to the gate agent prior to boarding the flight.

IPFreely wrote:

cat3appr50 wrote:

Unless this doctor was scheduled to perform life threatening surgery the following morning, the doctor excuse IMO isn’t valid relative to not being considered for IDB.

The doctor in question is not allowed to perform surgery.

It really doesn't matter if he is or isn't "allowed" to perform surgery. He is a paying customer with a given seat that was given the option to "volunteer" (https://twitter.com/MerriamWebster/stat ... 2037819392) to leave or be FORCED to. Not really relevant to the discussion.

PA110 wrote:

Bottom Line: United's need to position a crew at last minute is a cost of doing business. It should not come at the expense of their paying customers. United tried to do this on the cheap. They should have kept upping the offer until they had the necessary volunteers. That should be the ultimate outcome of this incident. Airlines should no longer be allowed to disembark passengers for a deadheading crew. Period. They can and should solicit volunteers by offering increased compensation until they have secured the needed space. That will be the market value of having to reposition crews.

Bingo. The airlines are welcome to play the IDB game, but if they get no takers, they should have to keep upping the offer. That is the cost to play the game.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

kavok wrote:

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

Ya, ok.

Cerecl wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

Because if this the case it strongly suggests racism. How likely it is that 4 "randomly" selected passengers were all Asian? Just imagine the outcry in UA's Asian destinations-"When we run into problems you get thrown off first".

You're letting your emotions decide what happened. You have no idea how the decision was reached, who was selected for what reasons, etc. None. Absent the truth, you are just stirring the pot with your assumptions.

Actually no, my sympathy does not stem from the fact that this guy is Asian. Nowhere did I unconditionally accuse UA of racism. What I wrote was 100% correct. IF all 4 passengers were Asian, which is a minority race, then UA has a lot more explanation to do and their corporate image in Asian countries would suffer further as this is a statistically very unlikely event and likely debunks the claim that the selection was random. I'd like to see you disputing that. I also cautioned that the rumour was yet unsubstantiated, so much for "letting your emotions decide what happened".

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

I did say "possibly". Give me conclusive evidence race played no role and I will delete the "possibly his race" bit
I am a Asian, however I don't think you have any grounds of labeling other people SJW unless you have intimate knowledge of how the 4 people were picked. I am guessing you don't. My sympathy is with the passenger, I would have written exactly the same thing if he were an afro-American or Tongan.
UA created the situation and used the police force inappropriately. This guy did not break any law-this has been covered extensively I don't want to go into an argument about absolutely control and UA can do whatever they want on their plane.
As long as he is not deregistered he is an active practitioner. He just needs to get a MRI scan of his brain and any tiny change that can be reasonably associated with trauma will mean UA pay out much more.

You have zero evidence that race did play a role. Yet that doesn't stop you from implying it. There is however a method to determine who is denied, and it has nothing to do with race or occupation.

There is, as I wrote, yet unsubstantiated claim then 4 passengers removed were all Asians, so not zero evidence. You give me the race of the 4 passengers, and if they are not all (or majority) Asian, I will delete the part in my post about race. Unless you are involved in the decision making of which 4 to remove, how can you be so certain race played no role??

That's called a coincidence, not evidence. I can be certain because these are procedures to determine who is denied that have been done forever and they don't involve race or occupation.

kavok wrote:

PA110 wrote:

Bottom Line: United's need to position a crew at last minute is a cost of doing business. It should not come at the expense of their paying customers. United tried to do this on the cheap. They should have kept upping the offer until they had the necessary volunteers. That should be the ultimate outcome of this incident. Airlines should no longer be allowed to disembark passengers for a deadheading crew. Period. They can and should solicit volunteers by offering increased compensation until they have secured the needed space. That will be the market value of having to reposition crews.

Bingo. The airlines are welcome to play the IDB game, but if they get no takers, they should have to keep upping the offer. That is the cost to play the game.

No, its not. There's nothing that says they have to go to any specific amount. That's a courtesy.