Board 8 > Who do you think was in the right in this united airlines situation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/united-under-fire-for-dragging-passenger-off-overbooked-flight/ar-BBzFcrr?li=BBnb7Kz
---

Regardless of whether it was right for the passenger to refuse to get off, you don't handle that by ripping them out of the seat and dragging them down the aisle. Like you just don't.


Also I don't know if it's in that article but apparently the doctor refused because he has patients in Louisville that he was going to see. So that makes it even more shitty on United if it's true.
---

When they ask you to give up your seat that you paid for... and you refuse... they should move on. Because you're not required to give you up your damn seat. Sue those pos for assault.

I'm... I'm not sure how you even theoretically justify this.
---

Regardless of who was legally right, the airline/police behavior was abhorrent morally.
---

SupremeZero posted...

I'm... I'm not sure how you even theoretically justify this.

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/04/10/beating-doctor-united-flight-terrible-maybe-unavoidable/

to clarify I am NOT advocating this position, but just think, we already have a SmartMuffin on this board; there are doubtless other SmartMuffins out there, each with their own blog and an axe to grind with people who actually experience emotions.
---

would need to do research to say with confidence whether the passenger had a rightful claim to the seat after being told to leave (but my impression is that he didn't)

either way it seems like law enforcement used unnecessary force
---

it's pretty fucked up of them to be like "we screwed up, now random passengers have to suffer for it" instead of making the United employees wait for another flight
---

HeroicGammaRay posted...

would need to do research to say with confidence whether the passenger had a rightful claim to the seat after being told to leave (but my impression is that he didn't)

either way it seems like law enforcement used unnecessary force
---

really? so if they overbook then they're within their rights to ask any passenger to leave?
---

It's United Airlines fault 100%. They let too many people on board the plane.
---

it would depend on whatever terms the passenger agreed to when purchasing a united ticket (most probably there was a provision allowing this), as well as relevant law (dunno if these procedures have held/would hold up in court - at the very least i believe there are regulations stating that the airline must provide compensation with value depending on what alternatives they're able to schedule for the passenger)

in this case united wanted to make room for crew members as opposed to the more common case of other passengers with tickets, and maybe this changes the legal situation but i wouldn't assume so
---

united is 100% in the wrong and all american airlines are garbage and we should nationalize the industry

HeroicGammaRay posted...

it would depend on whatever terms the passenger agreed to when purchasing a united ticket (most probably there was a provision allowing this), as well as relevant law (dunno if these procedures have held/would hold up in court - at the very least i believe there are regulations stating that the airline must provide compensation with value depending on what alternatives they're able to schedule for the passenger)

in this case united wanted to make room for crew members as opposed to the more common case of other passengers with tickets, and maybe this changes the legal situation but i wouldn't assume so
---

That's actually kind of absurd, given that airlines are regularly asshats to non-revenue passengers.
---

what is absurd?

That United preferred non-revenue passengers (which is what they were making room for) over revenue passengers.
---

maybe i was unclear - in my understanding they needed to get a number of their own employees to the destination to work another flight there

to which i've seen objections like 'why not just drive them??' and counter-objections about the employees' contracts and i really have no idea on that front

Hopefully the guy becomes the next Rosa Parks and sues United Airlines's ass for perpetrating hate crimes.
---

SupremeZero posted...

HeroicGammaRay posted...

it would depend on whatever terms the passenger agreed to when purchasing a united ticket (most probably there was a provision allowing this), as well as relevant law (dunno if these procedures have held/would hold up in court - at the very least i believe there are regulations stating that the airline must provide compensation with value depending on what alternatives they're able to schedule for the passenger)

in this case united wanted to make room for crew members as opposed to the more common case of other passengers with tickets, and maybe this changes the legal situation but i wouldn't assume so
---

That's actually kind of absurd, given that airlines are regularly asshats to non-revenue passengers.

Such as this very same airline just two weeks prior towards the 10-year-old girl with the leggings.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Such as this very same airline just two weeks prior towards the 10-year-old girl with the leggings.

that one actually made sense. she wasn't a random person who bought a ticket, she was using a free ticket that effectively considers her as a representative of the airline. the dress code isn't clear but leggings would be too little there anyway, you might as well be in ripped jeans and sandals. i don't blame the airline on that one, i blame the employee gave the ticket for not clarifying why they're flying for free and that there's a dress code involved.


now this case, that's just united's fault and they behaved in the worst way possible.
---

As I understand it, United originally offered something like $300-400 and a hotel room, and no one on the plane volunteered to give up their seats. They then upped it to $800, and still no one volunteered. It was at that point that they randomly chose four passengers to exit the plane. This doctor was among the four and refused to relinquish his seat.

I have no idea is this is actually United's policy, but going through this whole process AFTER passengers have already boarded the plane seems so stupid to me. When faced with an overbooking situation, it should always be handled before the plane is boarded.
---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

When they ask you to give up your seat that you paid for... and you refuse... they should move on. Because you're not required to give you up your damn seat. Sue those pos for assault.

Actually the fine print says that you are. They even have fairly large signs posted at a lot of airports saying so too.
---

No passenger is going to happily concede to the fine print once they're already in their seats. I've been in a few overbooked planes, and those situations were ALWAYS handled at the gate before any passengers were allowed to board the plane.

This seems like horrible internal policy from United, and it's now resulting in a PR disaster.

btw I saw the vid once this morning, and the takedown looked horrible. That poor man.
---

Wanglicious posted...

MrGreenonion posted...

Such as this very same airline just two weeks prior towards the 10-year-old girl with the leggings.

that one actually made sense. she wasn't a random person who bought a ticket, she was using a free ticket that effectively considers her as a representative of the airline. the dress code isn't clear but leggings would be too little there anyway, you might as well be in ripped jeans and sandals. i don't blame the airline on that one, i blame the employee gave the ticket for not clarifying why they're flying for free and that there's a dress code involved.


now this case, that's just united's fault and they behaved in the worst way possible.

She was literally a child, not an employee of the airline. And in what century are either leggings or ripped jeans "too little" cuz it sure ain't this one.
---

Rosa Parks was "required" to give up her seat as well back in her days. It was a "colored" seat too.
---

After United tried telling parents how to dress a 10 year old girl, they are automatically in the wrong about everything.
---

The main problem here is that they allowed everyone to board the flight in the first place. This stuff happens all the time, but it should be settled with angry people yelling at the terminal, not getting dragged out of their seats.

Overbooking is way too common these days, and air travel in general sucks, but United fucked this up way more than they should have.
---

yeah it's very dumb that the boarding happened first

not quite the same thing but i've had a united flight out of o'hare that had a huge delay due to issues with the plane and they couldn't seem to figure out whether they wanted us to wait on or off the plane. the end result being that we spent hours waiting boarded even when it was completely clear that we'd have to get off eventually...and indeed we all had to get off before the plane was ready to fly. combined with this incident it makes me think that united at o'hare is just totally incompetent.

Kenri posted...

She was literally a child, not an employee of the airline

The ticket she's using says she's a representative. As a result, she needs to comply with the dress code for that. If she wants to dress super casual she/her parents can just get her own ticket, there's no problem if she's just a paying customer. But if she wants to fly with the free company ticket, she must comply with the company dress code. This is a complete non issue and is very black and white.

The only thing "just a child!" arguments says is that maybe these free tickets shouldn't be given to children but I don't like ruining nice things. It's a free ticket given to employees of the airline so they can travel with family. Clearing up the dress code could help but that's about it. No fault to them in that case.
---

"United just solved their overbooking problem." Hopefully.
---

psaltery posted...

"United just solved their overbooking problem." Hopefully.

nope

overbooking is intentionally done as a profit-maximizing strategy

if demand falls off they'll just have fewer flights, but continue to overbook the ones they have!
---

Seems like serious incompetence by the airline to be honest
---

Overbooking as a business tactic is fine and understandable. Not having measures to deal with its shortcomings is unforgivable.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Overbooking as a business tactic is fine and understandable. Not having measures to deal with its shortcomings is unforgivable.

They have plenty of measures. 99.99% of overbooking situations do not end in the way this one did.

I think people here are not distinguishing between "a mistake was made" and "in the right." Sometimes you can fuck up, but still be in the right. Just because a mistake was made does not mean that, once the mistake is noticed, it is wrong to attempt to correct it.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Just because a mistake was made does not mean that, once the mistake is noticed, it is wrong to attempt to correct it.

I don't understand. I think everyone wants United to correct their mistake, specifically by giving this beaten and humiliated victim a ton of money, and by assuring the public that they will deal with future overbookings before passengers have already boarded the plane.
---

And yet, this one did. Do they have poor training? Poor employee selection practices? Poor business incentives or direction? There is no excuse in how they handled this. The statements released since the event have been nearly as disgusting as the original event.
Correcting mistakes is fine. United has given no indication that they even see their actions as mistakes.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Overbooking as a business tactic is fine and understandable. Not having measures to deal with its shortcomings is unforgivable.

They have plenty of measures. 99.99% of overbooking situations do not end in the way this one did.

I think people here are not distinguishing between "a mistake was made" and "in the right." Sometimes you can fuck up, but still be in the right. Just because a mistake was made does not mean that, once the mistake is noticed, it is wrong to attempt to correct it.

Well there is also a difference between them being in the right with doing something and them doing that thing in the right way. Legally speaking United was in the right to remove him. That doesn't mean that they had the right to remove him in teh way they did
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Just because a mistake was made does not mean that, once the mistake is noticed, it is wrong to attempt to correct it.

I don't understand. I think everyone wants United to correct their mistake, specifically by giving this beaten and humiliated victim a ton of money, and by assuring the public that they will deal with future overbookings before passengers have already boarded the plane.

Policy is to deal with overbookings before passengers board the plane. As I said, this happens the overwhelming majority of the time. The mistake was not catching it and not doing it this time.
---

EDIT: It's not the official response. Just a response from the former CEO

Still a bad look
---

That doesn't mean that they had the right to remove him in teh way they did

If they tell him to leave and he won't leave, what else can they do?
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The statements released since the event have been nearly as disgusting as the original event.

My favorite is the police statement on this.

"He fell."
---

Kinglicious posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

The statements released since the event have been nearly as disgusting as the original event.

My favorite is the police statement on this.

"He fell."

"All those smart phones are edited, he just fell."
---

SmartMuffin posted...

That doesn't mean that they had the right to remove him in teh way they did

If they tell him to leave and he won't leave, what else can they do?

Well you start by not giving someone a quite possibly life long altering concussion.

The violence used to remove him was clearly unnecessary.
---

I would also like to point out that airports and airlines are the most insanely authoritarian aspect of our society, and that is saying something in our culture of obedience. notice how nobody on the flight dared to say anything or try to help this man in solidarity as all of this happened, they just sat there because they were afraid if THEY didn't obey then they would be mistreated too. and nobody can risk giving up their seat or missing their flight because they don't have time and can't afford it so you HAVE to obey. someone randomly got picked to be removed and as long as it wasn't them, fuck it. corporations using state violence to enforce compliance in order to protect profits is fundamental to capitalism, and this can only be fixed by nationalizing the airlines. same damn people crying about trump being a fascist probably all sat by while the authorities forcefully removed an old man from his seat over a mistake made by the company that stood to gain from removing him in the first place. somehow think the only problem here was that they boarded the plane first before screwing the guy over all in name of profit margins. we only got authoritarian nonsense cause of folks like that who just obey without question.

Maybe you spend time exhausting some more diplomatic and less physical options! Escalating the situation is a poor answer from a company in the service industry.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If they tell him to leave and he won't leave, what else can they do?

This is why I blame United way more than those officers. The officers fucked up but United should have never called them in the first place.
---

Nobody brings up that this guy is supposedly a doctor, by the way.

And that forcibly preventing a doctor from getting to where he needs to go is a horrible fucking idea, because that could potentially cause people to die.

Because you decided he needed to be the one to get off your plane.

Despite the fact that having a doctor on your plane is normally considered an asset.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

That doesn't mean that they had the right to remove him in teh way they did

If they tell him to leave and he won't leave, what else can they do?

deal with the financial hit of their mistake, reprimand the employees who made the mistake, apologize to the passengers for the wait they were caused due to the airlines mistake

Maybe you spend time exhausting some more diplomatic and less physical options!

They literally already tried "We will give you hundreds of dollars to leave." The longer the process drags on, the more upset everyone else on the plane gets.
---

Bear in mind, he got back on the plane afterwards anyway.
So there was literally no need to remove him.
---

https://twitter.com/dcmac18/status/851549182573907968
---