America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Actually, they, meaning United, may not have the authority to remove anyone from the plane in the first place. Leonard French again:

Disorderly, 3:33 into the video. They asked him to leave, he didn't. Done.

 

[UKMikey]

I'll reserve judgment on the excessive force until all the facts are in.

I'd be interested to find out why he was bleeding from the mouth in the photos we saw if excessive force wasn't used.

I'd also be interested how dragging someone from the plane by his arms constitutes a reasonable amount of force.

Lastly I'd like to know for sure whether the airline simply overbooked this flight or whether their ops dept had to schedule four crew members in at the last minute, and had to get them home in time to make the required amount of sleep before the following flight.

This last point might affect United's legal rights to remove a paying, seated passenger from the plane (in that the overbooking rules wouldn't apply to a flight that wasn't overbooked). In my experience overbooking compensation is paid before the passenger boards the aircraft anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I don't want my comments in this thread to be taken as being supportive of the actions of United or the police. I think they have crap policies, and the police have entirely too much authority at airports. For the most part, the arguments presented here are moot. The contract doesn't matter as much as people think it does - contracts are declared unenforceable all the time. The police definitely have authority to remove people from aircraft, whether that authority is right, or what authority would be right is a different discussion. How much force they should use under what circumstances is debatable and not really reflective of United anyway.

I'm on board (see what I did there?) with the anti-United, anti-brutality sentiment. I just see a lot of misplaced reasoning.

 

[Biggles]

As a matter of future policy the logical solution to the situation that occurred would be to keep increasing the amount offered as compensation for being bumped until someone steps up to accept it - a reverse "Dutch auction". This would seem a more reasonable approach than insisting that an unwilling person be removed, by force if they don't comply voluntarily.

BTW: he was bleeding from the mouth (presumably) because when they pulled him over the seats to get him out, they pulled him violently into the seat rest on the opposite side of the aisle.

United stock price down 2.4% so far today - that's a $550 million drop in valuation.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/un...illion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11

 

[Sanji Himura]

Disorderly, 3:33 into the video. They asked him to leave, he didn't. Done.

The other passengers said that he was perfectly normal until he had his *** kicked by police.

 

[Danoff]

The other passengers said that he was perfectly normal until he had his *** kicked by police.

Refusing the direction of airline personnel can be considered disorderly even if he seems normal about it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Refusing the direction of airline personnel can be considered disorderly even if he seems normal about it.

Not true. He was granted permission to board the plane. If United wanted to free up 4 seats to their personnel, then he should have been refused gate entry. United didn't foresee that, and created an overbooking situation on their own.

If he was refused at the gate, and then raised a stink about it, then yes, he would be considered disorderly. It is the fact that he was allowed to board the plane that everything that United and the police did was improper under their own rules.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm just amazed that anyone could be so determined to fly with United Airlines.

 

[Sanji Himura]

A small town news paper that is operated by 10 people, most of whom are related, has just won the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-pulitzer-for-taking-on-agriculture-companies

 

[Danoff]

Not true. He was granted permission to board the plane. If United wanted to free up 4 seats to their personnel, then he should have been refused gate entry. United didn't foresee that, and created an overbooking situation on their own.

If he was refused at the gate, and then raised a stink about it, then yes, he would be considered disorderly. It is the fact that he was allowed to board the plane that everything that United and the police did was improper under their own rules.

They can consider a passenger who refuses to deboard when instructed as disorderly.

 

[Tornado]

Not true. He was granted permission to board the plane. If United wanted to free up 4 seats to their personnel, then he should have been refused gate entry. United didn't foresee that, and created an overbooking situation on their own.

If he was refused at the gate, and then raised a stink about it, then yes, he would be considered disorderly. It is the fact that he was allowed to board the plane that everything that United and the police did was improper under their own rules.

If I say you can come in my house you are granted implicit permission to never leave?

 

[TenEightyOne]

He was granted permission to board the plane.

Yep.

If United wanted to free up 4 seats to their personnel, then he should have been refused gate entry.

Probably, but that wasn't in his contract.

United didn't foresee that, and created an overbooking situation on their own.

They did foresee that, they're the ones who overbooked the flight - just like all airlines are wont to do.

If he was refused at the gate, and then raised a stink about it, then yes, he would be considered disorderly.

Yep. He'd also be considered disorderly if he refused to act according to his contract once he was on the plane. Which he did.

It is the fact that he was allowed to board the plane that everything that United...did was improper under their own rules.

Rules, no. That's the contract. They did everything right. Staff guidance? Hard to say but I imagine that will change very soon.

...everything...the police did was improper under their own rules.

There are various places where one should never **** about and on a parked airliner is definitely one of them. The authority were asked to remove a passenger who was refusing to leave the plane. It remains to be seen how much they overstepped the mark.

What this case exposes is the unpleasantness for travellers of the overbooking system. This particular episode ended horribly and all parties seem to agree that it should never have happened. What isn't in question is that United were within their contractual rights to overbook the flight and to ask passengers to get off the plane.

With hindsight and common sense it's obvious that in this case they discharged their contractual duties without a great deal of sense or planning and, as I've said, I think we'll see changes to how those passenger contracts are undertaken. Still, this is a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game"... every booked flight has the potential to generate this kind of incident, we'll have to see how airlines respond to this case.

 

[Sanji Himura]

They did foresee that, they're the ones who overbooked the flight - just like all airlines are wont to do.

Except it wasn't overbooked, according to CEO Oscar Munoz. Had those four employees boarded the flight, it probably would have.

Yep. He'd also be considered disorderly if he refused to act according to his contract once he was on the plane. Which he did.

Again, I stress that he was completely normal UNTIL United forced him off the plane, getting his *** beat in the process. I would like to call your attention to United's Contract of Carriage. (Link here) Rules 5, 21 and 25 are of specific interest. Please keep in mind that under contract law, if they don't specifically spell it out in a contract, then the courts generally get to sort that out for them (the parties involved). Virtually no mention of removal of a passenger by force while said passenger is on the plane itself is on that document.

Yep. He'd also be considered disorderly if he refused to act according to his contract once he was on the plane. Which he did.

See above link. The Contract of Carriage doesn't explicitly give United any rights to remove a passenger for "overbooking" once they are on the plane itself, which was the explanation that the crew of that flight gave to the passengers. The courts would have to sort that out.

Rules, no. That's the contract. They did everything right. Staff guidance? Hard to say but I imagine that will change very soon.

Not true, if the Chicago Department of Aviation's own statement is to be believed.

There are various places where one should never **** about and on a parked airliner is definitely one of them. The authority were asked to remove a passenger who was refusing to leave the plane. It remains to be seen how much they overstepped the mark.

What this case exposes is the unpleasantness for travellers of the overbooking system. This particular episode ended horribly and all parties seem to agree that it should never have happened. What isn't in question is that United were within their contractual rights to overbook the flight and to ask passengers to get off the plane.

With hindsight and common sense it's obvious that in this case they discharged their contractual duties without a great deal of sense or planning and, as I've said, I think we'll see changes to how those passenger contracts are undertaken. Still, this is a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game"... every booked flight has the potential to generate this kind of incident, we'll have to see how airlines respond to this case.

1. The flight wasn't overbooked by the CEO's own admission. The decision to remove passengers rested solely on flight personnel in Chicago.

2. Overbooking was just a convent excuse that said personnel gave to remove passengers. United has had a history of treating passengers badly, up to and including not aiding a blind woman off the plane. The flight's maintenance crew had to help her off the plane (Source). The past behavior of United is a trending topic on the Today I Learned subreddit if you care to take a look.

 

[Joel]

The rules allow paramilitary thugs to rip a guy out of his seat and violently drag him down the aisle of a plane at the behest of a private corporation while other passengers scream in terror. I'd hope people would be outraged about that instead of going "well, actually" about the rules.

But hey it's the internet and what better place is there to make a submissive and contrarian defence of the Byzantine system of regulations that lead to a man being subjected to brutal state violence for sitting in a seat he paid for.

 

[Danoff]

Again, I stress that he was completely normal UNTIL United forced him off the plane, getting his *** beat in the process.

Again, refusing aircraft personnel instructions is not "completely normal". It can be, by itself, disorderly.

I would like to call your attention to United's Contract of Carriage. (Link here) Rules 5, 21 and 25 are of specific interest. Please keep in mind that under contract law, if they don't specifically spell it out in a contract, then the courts generally get to sort that out for them (the parties involved). Virtually no mention of removal of a passenger by force while said passenger is on the plane itself is on that document.

They can remove passengers for being disorderly even after takeoff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...ces-plane-return-Denver-Airport-terminal.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-flight-idUSKCN0SD1Z920151019

They can even remove ALL passengers from the plane... after takeoff... because one passenger was disorderly.

See above link. The Contract of Carriage doesn't explicitly give United any rights to remove a passenger for "overbooking" once they are on the plane itself, which was the explanation that the crew of that flight gave to the passengers. The courts would have to sort that out.

I already pointed you to the part of the video where he says being disorderly is a reason to remove. Refusing to comply with instructions is disorderly.

Not true, if the Chicago Department of Aviation's own statement is to be believed.

Can you just quote that, or point me to where it was quoted here so that I can read it.

Again, this is not me being in support of United or the police. My opinion is that they should not enforce rules that they know are a) unenforceable and b) are not good customer service.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except it wasn't overbooked, according to CEO Oscar Munoz. Had those four employees boarded the flight, it probably would have.

Fair enough... but in either case the overbooking procedure clearly applies. "Default" non-paid (ie aircrew transfer bookings) clearly count as seats and thereby Overbooking.

As soon as he refuses to vacate his seat as a nominated "volunteer" the United behemoth moves onto Rule 21-H-1.

The rules allow paramilitary thugs to rip a guy out of his seat and violently drag him down the aisle of a plane at the behest of a private corporation while other passengers scream in terror. I'd hope people would be outraged about that instead of going "well, actually" about the rules.

But hey it's the internet and what better place is there to make a submissive and contrarian defence of the Byzantine system of regulations that lead to a man being subjected to brutal state violence for sitting in a seat he paid for.

I absolutely agree. In the case of my own posts (I can't speak for others) I'm agog that the rules are in place for this to happen to a passenger and that his initial protests about becoming a "volunteer" were not enough for United to move on to bribing compensating a different passenger.

Again, this is not me being in support of United or the police. My opinion is that they should not enforce rules that they know are a) unenforceable and b) are not good customer service.

Agreed.

 

[Northstar]

Actually overbooking is common practice in a number of businesses. Chances are your doctor's office routinely overbooks. I'd say that any industry that requires clients to make an appointment probably overbooks.

True, but at the same time the airline industry is the only one that requires people to pay their entire total up-front. To me that should make overbooking a flight illegal.

 

[Danoff]

True, but at the same time the airline industry is the only one that requires people to pay their entire total up-front. To me that should make overbooking a flight illegal.

I've been charged and refunded plenty of times for things that sold out prior to the sale. Happens a lot with car parts... they don't know it's discontinued until someone buys it and is auto-charged for it and they try to fill it. Suddenly they realize it's "overbooked" and update their website to reflect that it's discontinued.

 

[Northstar]

I've been charged and refunded plenty of times for things that sold out prior to the sale. Happens a lot with car parts... they don't know it's discontinued until someone buys it and is auto-charged for it and they try to fill it. Suddenly they realize it's "overbooked" and update their website to reflect that it's discontinued.

That's quite a bit different considering they made the sale expecting to be able to fulfill it and only later became aware that they won't. Airlines on the other hand knowingly sell >100% of their seats.

 

[Sanji Himura]

More analysis from The Federalist this time: http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/11...ract-by-forcing-that-passenger-off-the-plane/

 

[Liquid]

It was fun for a few hours reverting back to the old ATOT of discussing an event which, on the grand scale of crimes against humanity, is not major but as an isolated incident typically brings good discussion about laws and whether "Is this the US I want?" and maybe a brief dip into pop cultural history.

Can we go one WEEK without Trumpet Spice turning the United States into a diplomatic and international laughing stock?

 

[Robin]

Spicer pulled a Ken Livingstone (UK's former London Mayor) who made a similar gaff and was suspended from the Labour party. Do people ever learn to not bring up 'what Adolf would do/did/didn't do'.

 

[Danoff]

That's quite a bit different considering they made the sale expecting to be able to fulfill it and only later became aware that they won't. Airlines on the other hand knowingly sell >100% of their seats.

Not really, their mechanism for determining that they're out of parts is to wait for someone to order one they can't fill. They quite intentionally overbook.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Spicer pulled a Ken Livingstone (UK's former London Mayor) who made a similar gaff and was suspended from the Labour party. Do people ever learn to not bring up 'what Adolf would do/did/didn't do'.

Not sure what this one has to do with America? Two, even more to the point of my post doesn't even allow me to watch it in America cause it's not available to Americans...

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This was the lead story on ABC's World News Tonight. The lead story! This is barely news at all. There is not a person here, or in that newsroom that doesn't know what he meant, but it was the **** the Trump administration story of the day.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This was the lead story on ABC's World News Tonight. The lead story! This is barely news at all. There is not a person here, or in that newsroom that doesn't know what he meant, but it was the **** the Trump administration story of the day.

Then I wonder why Spicer's found it necessary to... wait for it... apologise?

As the proxy voice of the Presdunt it's pretty stupid to assert that Hitler never used chemical weapons. When questioned he went on to refer to "Holocaust centres" (wth?) and pointed out that Assad used such weapons on the "innocent" leading to a surely obvious inference.

He managed to do this on Pesach. Slow hand clap.

I take it from your post that he... he meant something else?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Then I wonder why Spicer's found it necessary to... wait for it... apologise?

As the proxy voice of the Presdunt it's pretty stupid to assert that Hitler never used chemical weapons. When questioned he went on to refer to "Holocaust centres" (wth?) and pointed out that Assad used such weapons on the "innocent" leading to a surely obvious inference.

He managed to do this on Pesach. Slow hand clap.

I take it from your post that he... he meant something else?

He was obviously talking about the battlefield. And you know that.

Holocaust centers or concentration camps, I am not sure when the term 'holocaust' was coined, but what the hell difference does it make. Again, you know what he meant, and so did the news media.

But they make enough of a big deal out of this nothing story to make it the lead. Do you really think Spicer doesn't know about the holocaust? Give me a break.

This is nothing more than the media grasping at low hanging fruit to discredit the Trump administration.



Why don't they spend more time looking at why Susan Rice was doing what she was doing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

He was obviously talking about the battlefield. And you know that.

Holocaust centers or concentration camps, I am not sure when the term 'holocaust' was coined, but what the hell difference does it make. Again, you know what he meant, and so did the news media.

But they make enough of a big deal out of this nothing story to make it the lead. Do you really think Spicer doesn't know about the holocaust? Give me a break.

This is nothing more than the media grasping at low hanging fruit to discredit the Trump administration.



Why don't they spend more time looking at why Susan Rice was doing what she was doing.

Any time you can garner up some fake Hitler outrage it's front page news.

 

[McLaren]

The rules allow paramilitary thugs to rip a guy out of his seat and violently drag him down the aisle of a plane at the behest of a private corporation while other passengers scream in terror. I'd hope people would be outraged about that instead of going "well, actually" about the rules.

But hey it's the internet and what better place is there to make a submissive and contrarian defence of the Byzantine system of regulations that lead to a man being subjected to brutal state violence for sitting in a seat he paid for.

Would you rather we switch the rules where anyone can stay in your place of business against your request for them to leave, just because they paid money? That is what the compensation is for; to pay him back and then some.

Nobody is supporting the actions of the Dept. of Aviation's excessive force, but people need to understand businesses have a lot of "hidden" rights they can exercise. Right to refuse service is a huge one, for no reason as long as it's not based on certain conditions (I believe, there may actually be little-to-none legally). That's what United would've ended up exercising; refusal to fly to until he left the plane and compensated for the inconvenience.