I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love to see United press charges and sue him for lost revenue.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS The Not So Friendly Skies....
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I would also prefer not to have extra regulation when there is a solution. From senior economics analyst Stephen Moore. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/opini...booking-fiasco-simple-solution-opinion-moore/
What is most infuriating is that there is no reason for anyone to be involuntarily bumped from an airline flight -- ever. A simple economic solution exists -- developed long ago by the late economist Julian Simon of the University of Maryland: holding an auction among the passengers to bid to give up their seats in exchange for monetary compensation...This process used to happen all the time. But then airlines got cheap (his word, not mine) and stopped the bidding process at a low level. The FAA issued ridiculous and arbitrary rules that allow airlines to cap how much they offer volunteers.
In the US, you're probably right. Not sure how this will play in China - they seem rather upset.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/chin...ed-and-the-airline-may-face-real-fallout.html
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
There were plenty of seats available for those 4 United crew after the other people left the flight after the scene that was made.
The local TV channel had an aviation lawyer on who had read United's air transportation contract (may have the terminology wrong) and said after reviewing it that it looks like United violated their own contract as what she had said is that when oversold they can bump passengers for other paying passengers, and since the aircrew were not paying passengers that isn't covered.
of course United could look worse if it was an 80 year old woman instead of some doctor who was convicted of misusing he ability to prescribe drugs.
The local TV channel had an aviation lawyer on who had read United's air transportation contract (may have the terminology wrong) and said after reviewing it that it looks like United violated their own contract as what she had said is that when oversold they can bump passengers for other paying passengers, and since the aircrew were not paying passengers that isn't covered.
of course United could look worse if it was an 80 year old woman instead of some doctor who was convicted of misusing he ability to prescribe drugs.
I love the rugged individualists who talk tough about standing up to gubmint regulations (which are written in the same black-and-white as airline carriage contracts) dropping to their knees to slobber all over corporate authority. It's truly impressive how deep you take it.
Just cuz it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's a good way to do business. Not to mention that all around the world folks are watching and listening as we say, "Hey, join our clubs, play by our rules, and maybe your society too will reach the glorious state of civilization when state power is leveraged against citizens on behalf of corporate profits and convenience!"
and how the dude cried or what he did at any point in his life before that flight is pretty irrelevant.
Just cuz it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's a good way to do business. Not to mention that all around the world folks are watching and listening as we say, "Hey, join our clubs, play by our rules, and maybe your society too will reach the glorious state of civilization when state power is leveraged against citizens on behalf of corporate profits and convenience!"
and how the dude cried or what he did at any point in his life before that flight is pretty irrelevant.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
It's not irrelevant. It's indicative of a behavioral pattern that explains why he resisted past the point of reasonableness.
Guess what: you don't have to fly with United.
All this said, I am kind of amazed nobody stood up and said "It's OK. I'll take the voucher and go instead of him." before the wheels fell off the wagon. If I were there, and saw things trending in a bad direction, I actually might have done that myself. Or maybe someone did, but it was too late because Dr. Stubborn had already made a scene.
The more I think about this, the weirder it seems.
The more I think about this, the weirder it seems.
All you single anchor types, correct me if I'm wrong (or maybe I missed it), but where was the Captain in all of this? I cant imagine any of this happening if the Captain came out to smooth over all the ruffled feathers and help "persuade" the affected passengers come to the right decision. Am I wrong here?
If the dude won't get off for $1000, won't get off after his wife gets off, won't get off when ordered to by flight attendants and customer service agents, won't get off when confronted with uniformed police, what do you think having someone with wings on their chest will do?
Yeah, but maybe the hat would help...
Yes you are wrong.
On the ground at the jetway, you let the customer service agents handle stuff. They are in charge there. A Captain's authority starts when the plane's door closes. A Captain can obviously say "I'm not flying with him on my plane" at anytime but otherwise it's the CSA's job.
No, I don't.
But are you seriously ok with the fact that what was basically a market supply-demand problem, i.e. the seats are in limited supply and have a value to each specific passenger as well as to United itself, was resolved when the corporation enlisted state violence on behalf of its own economic interests? United just walked away from the bargaining table and sent the cops after someone who was a danger to nothing and no one except a few United dollars. Where would you draw the line for corporations being able to do this kind of thing? Just at airlines?
This reminds me a bit of Kelo vs. City of New London on a micro scale and is one of those things where political lines aren't quite as clear.
State violence? So dramatic. Especially from someone who is in the military (or was) where the job is to use the ultimate form of "state violence" to enforce the "corporation's" (government's) will when the bargaining table failed.
Who are the supposed to call? The janitor?
Businesses can refuse service to anyone for the right reasons. Overbooking is allowed by government regulations. When the airline refuses to carry an overbooked passenger they are in compliance with government regulations. When that passenger refuses to get off the plane they are not only violating that government regulation but they are also now essentially trespassing.
So yes the police are the right people to call. And it's the police' call as to whether they are going to use "state violence" or not. If they use "state violence" when the situation doesn't justify it, then it's on them and they are responsible.
Who are the supposed to call? The janitor?
Businesses can refuse service to anyone for the right reasons. Overbooking is allowed by government regulations. When the airline refuses to carry an overbooked passenger they are in compliance with government regulations. When that passenger refuses to get off the plane they are not only violating that government regulation but they are also now essentially trespassing.
So yes the police are the right people to call. And it's the police' call as to whether they are going to use "state violence" or not. If they use "state violence" when the situation doesn't justify it, then it's on them and they are responsible.
OK HAL, understand you are an Airline Pilot, and in the industry. And clearly, I am not. However, are you telling me that the authority and influence (something I believe every flying passenger understands) of the Captain is something that cannot be exercised while the cabin door is open? I think most people (myself included) would heed the "recommendation" of the Captain much more so than the gate agent or some other airline employee.
