The United Airline assault on a passenger is just another symptom of authoritarianism

[nadine_mn]

All reports show these facts are not in dispute:

1. United Airlines needed to get 4 of their staff to their destination but the plane was full (not over-booked)
2. UA asked for volunteers, first offering $400 and a hotel stay - no one took it
3. They upped the offer to $800 - again no one took it
4. Manager came on and said the flight would not leave until the staff could board, and they would have a computer select 4. A couple was selected first and they left. The 3rd person selected was the man who refused to leave.

They asked him to leave, he said no. He was told security would be called and 3 security officers ended up approaching him, talking to him and then the 3rd officer physically removed him - by dragging him.

This is not ok.

I don't how else to say it - but this is not acceptable in a free society. But somehow, we have become used to it and expect it. So instead of looking at ways to deescalate a situation we blame people for not following orders. Well if they had only listened, they wouldn't have gotten hurt. What? We see this again and again - police using lethal force at a traffic stop when there was no physical threat to them, peaceful protesters being tear-gassed. We have become dulled into handing over basic privacy rights and expected to do whatever someone in authority tells us to do - or expect VIOLENCE in return.

Violence is not ok.

[SummerSnow]

1. Disgraceful. Im still speechless behind this.Poor man.

[NurseJackie]

2. There's probably some small print that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...

... that will protect them. He may not have read their entire TOS, but when he completed his online purchase, he was agreeing to the TOS anyway.

I wonder if anyone has checked on United Airlines' stock today. I'll be it's not going up.

[Mosby]

10. They issued a boarding pass

That's a agreement to the contract on the ticket.

[nadine_mn]

13. Well, there is the right to refuse service vs the right not to leave bloodied

When it escalates to physical violence, there is no way he agreed to that.

It is just insane - because you know the security officer was all about having his authority respected...

[NurseJackie]

14. Yep... they've got something to prove. I can easily imagine...

... that they were rejected when they applied for a police job (or perhaps they were drummed out during training, or booted out for violations) and they've got a big ol' chip on their shoulder.

[JHB]

72. IIRC, the people who removed him had vests marked "Police"...

Am I mistaken? Or were they NOT security guards, but actual police officers?

[bekkilyn]

20. I'm fine with rights to refuse service (provided not a protected class), but

it needs to happen BEFORE money changes hands and the service is already in process. No paying passengers should have ever been forced or coerced off of that plane for any reasons other than obvious things such as threatening other passengers or some other criminal behavior. Paying for transportation and expecting to get what you paid for (including the *time* you paid for) is a perfectly normal expectation. What happened in this incident (and booting paying customers from flights against their will in general even if no violence occurs) is not normal and not right.

[regnaD kciN]

163. Actually, according to their own contract...

..."bumping" a passenger has to be done, at the very latest, at the gate. Once you've been allowed to board an aircraft, the only grounds for removal is being a threat to the airplane or its passengers. United doesn't have a leg to stand on with this one.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. It's actually up about 0.90% for today n/t

[JTFrog]

153. Their stock is being re-accommodated. nt

[CountAllVotes]

3. United has treated me no better

The last two times I dared to travel, I ended up going after these SOBs!

I hope they pay and pay dearly for this disgraceful/brutal treatment!

FUCK YOU UNITED AIRLINES!!

[Rollo]

57. Hear hear

I don't fly much any more, but flew 3-5 times a year in the 1990's, some international.

Invariably United Airlines had the most rude employees and the worst fling experience.

I particularly remember one flight where the flight attendant implied I was lying by asking for change for a headset. Her whole attitude was just wrong.

Given the chance, I'd fly anything but United. Sometimes the employer insisted on United, but if I had a choice, I'd select somebody else: Delta, Southwest for domestic, Virgin Atlantic for international to UK etc.

And I shudder to think how much more unpleasant flying is these days, especially on United.

[CountAllVotes]

128. They are disgusting!

I was coming off of an international flight (that was delayed overnight+) and when I got to the USA they were to meet me with a wheelchair. Well, no wheelchair that is for sure!

They were rude and slow and I missed my connecting flight and it was their intent to park me in the lobby of the airport overnight as they said no hotel rooms were available. I cried BULLSHIT and then some! I ended up being taken to another city 50 miles away for another unplanned overnight stay with no food, no nothing. I got the name of the man at the "service" desk and he was full of crap and rude!

When I got home, I sued their asses and they ignored me anyway as they are so damn BIG! In the end they gave me $200 and a coupon for a free drink!

I have never flown again after this.

As I said before, FUCK YOU UNITED AIRLINES!!!

I have since time wished them to go broke and maybe my wish has come true and oh yes, I still have the name of that man at the service desk. He is not off the hook with me and never will be!!!

[chia]

4. People with right-wing authoritarian tendencies

... are law-and-order types, who want (their idea of who they think is) legitimate authority in charge, keeping all the 'rebellious types' in line. These personality types voted for Trump in droves, and accordingly, I think they'll likely side with the airline because they show a large degree of submission to established authority and the aggression shown by that established authority to the 'lawless' who buck up against the RWA's perception of social convention.

[Dawson Leery]

31. Wrestlers,

and not just the Pro's. HS/College. Right wing, Christian zealots, who were crying in their wheaties over Iran's travel ban (which banned American wrestlers from traveling for competition, yet they backed Trump and his ban against Iran.)

[C_U_L8R]

5. Yeah but we fight back

And we hold the wallet. Assholes.

[malaise]

6. +1,000

This is the face of fascism

[No Vested Interest]

7. RESIST. nt

[Mosby]

8. I'm not a lawyer

But there is a really glaring issue here, basically United airlines and the passenger were in a contract dispute, a civil matter. Because of that no cop had any right whatsoever to touch him, much less detain him. The cops that assaulted him deserve to be fired.

[nadine_mn]

11. Eh I kinda am (went to law school, passed the bar but never practiced)

And that was years and years ago and I agree with you.

From everything I read - he was not posing a physical threat to anyone - so no need to be met with force. Also I believe that it was airline security not the police so I think muddies up how much authority they would have.

[treestar]

118. The needed to go to court for an affirmative injunction

That would have taken more time than was satisfactory to them.

They needed to up the reward to a point where someone thought it was a good deal. Interesting that no one on that plane preferred the $800. Probably someone does most of the time.

[bekkilyn]

121. Maybe if they would have offered cash instead of a voucher, someone would have taken it. (nt)

[treestar]

122. In the situation, they should have

as it was worth it to them to get the crew to where they needed to be. Really dumb to try to do it by force.

[mythology]

15. Tell you what

Go sit in any place of business and tell them you won't leave. Then explain your theory to the police and later the judge.

Trespassing is a crime.

[nadine_mn]

21. Wait - he was trespassing?

I thought he had permission to board the flight? I was under the impression that when he presented his boarding pass and was seated, that he was considered an invitee?

[bekkilyn]

24. No he wasn't tresspassing

He legitimately bought a ticket and was allowed onto the flight like all the other passengers. They just randomly decided to boot him from the flight because one of their employees "needed" his seat. He wasn't being disruptive. He wasn't a terrorist. No bad behavior whatsoever. His only "crime" was expecting the service that he paid for.

[Statistical]

33. Your ticket is conditional. If ordered to leave the plane you are legally obligated to leave

Failure to follow order to deplane is interference in the operation of a flight crew.

Nothing excuses how United handled it but you can't simply refuse to leave the plane.

[bekkilyn]

37. He still wasn't tresspassing

They didn't boot him off because he was trespassing. They booted him off because they randomly decided that it was more important for their employee to have his seat than him. Also, just because something may be technically legal doesn't make it right. Sometimes passive resistance is exactly the right thing to do.

[kcr]

105. So, this is a totally legit way to run a business then.

Sell tickets. Have passengers use these tickets to board your outfit. Then forcefully evict them into a bloody pulp. Repeat for profit! As long as you don't do this TOO often, right?

[bekkilyn]

23. Did that business rob me of the service I already paid for like United did to this gentleman?

How can you even defend this sort of thing? It's completely different than someone just walking into a business and being asked to leave before money ever changes hands.

[Foamfollower]

71. He had a firm and binding contractual agreement.

The boarding pass that was accepted at the gate is a firm and binding contract.

[athena]

93. Like a theater? Or a hotel?

You mean, for example, that after you've bought a ticket to see a play, if you go and sit in your assigned seat, the management can force you to leave because, say, a relative of the owner of the building decided to visit, and they think it's more important for the relative to see the show than for you to see the play you paid to see?

Or how about a hotel? Say you booked a room in a hotel and paid for it. You check into your room, unpack your bags, and lie on the bed to relax, when the owner of the hotel barges in and forces you out of the room. It turns out the guy's children decided to pay him a visit, and they need a place to stay. The twist? You don't even get your money back, and all the other hotels are booked. It is, after all, a private establishment, and the owner is under no obligation to let you stay there!

Or say you bought a car and paid for it. One day, you're at home, having breakfast, when the dealer shows up with a key to your car and gets in. The reason? The dealer's car broke down, and he needs to get to work. You say you paid for the car? Tough luck. He'll give you a $2,000 voucher you can use to buy another car from him. The problem is, he doesn't sell any car for less than $17,000, and you have to buy the car during the first week of next May; otherwise the voucher is worthless.

Sorry, but that is not the kind of world most of us want to live in.

[LanternWaste]

182. What bit of irrational absurdity leads you to believe he was trespassing?

What bit of irrational absurdity leads you to believe he was trespassing?

Lazy thinking is not a crime.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. FYI: 14 CFR 91.11 - Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.11

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

[nadine_mn]

52. I am not seeing a definition of "interference"

I think we can agree that the gentleman was not assaulting/threatening/or intimidating a crewmember.

I think there is a valid argument as far as interference.


"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

the interference is by the assault/threat or intimidation


also
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1411-interference-flight-crew-members-or-flight-attendants-49-usc


One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

103. AFAIK, if you don't cooperate with crew instructions, you're interfering n/t

[nadine_mn]

104. however - that is not listed in the statute

it refers to intimidation and threats as interference, but there is no language anywhere I could find that simply not following a request is on it's own considered to be interference

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

147. I have no legal background and can't point to any precedents

This will likely be up to the courts to decide.

[avebury]

116. How would sitting in your seat (not even an aisle

seat at that) constitute interfering with or lessening the ability of the flight crew to perform their duties? The guy had a valid ticket, had been granted access to the plane via a boarding pass and was sitting in his assigned seat. The flight crew has the ability to move about the cabin performing their assigned tasks. I doubt that there would be a valid argument on that grounds. Even if citing their right to bump passengers, that right should not extend to the level of having a passenger hauled off the plane unconscious and bleeding.

[treestar]

120. That would not apply

It is not a crew member's duty. That refers to stopping them from serving drinks or whatever.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

146. First, I'm not a lawyer

I believe that it is among the crew's duties to seat (remove) whoever the gate agent or other company officials designate. I also believe that it is within the letter of the law to call law enforcement to deal with uncooperative passengers.
One of the primary duties of the crew is maintaining order and safety.

Having said all that I believe this is absolutely a situation where the company should have pursued another solution.

[Throck]

101. The individual who assaulted him should go to jail.

[PuppyBismark]

9. For a good laugh, watch this video about United from a few years ago, over 16,000,000 Views

It appears United has still not learned how to treat customers.

link:

This is all true. Based on this video, United finally paid up.

[nadine_mn]

12. Hilarious - and sad

At some point you would think the cost of adverse publicity would be a deterrent to this behavior. But as more mergers go through and there is less competition, they know you are screwed.

[DFW]

17. Every guitarist in America has seen this

And we know it to be based on solid fact, not humorous fantasy.

[mountain grammy]

124. and they still haven't learned

don't mess with musicians and their instruments, and don't manhandle passengers.

[delisen]

155. Makes United look like a flying prison. wonder what their training is like.

Consider the customer your enemy.

[perdita9]

16. The airline has the right to ask you to leave the plane

You drop a number of your civil liberties whenever you board a plane or a boat. I think the cops mishandled this situation, but the laws may actually be on their side with asking them to get off.

[nadine_mn]

19. You can be asked to leave but there is excessive force used here

He wasn't posing a physical threat to them that required them to meet him with physical force.

In one video you can hear them talking, then suddenly he is screaming and being dragged. My problem isn't the "asking to leave" it's the violent escalation.

[Statistical]

29. I agree the force was excessive but what should have been done?

I mean where United really messed up is boarding too many people. Usually they refuse to board you rather than board you and ask you to leave.

Once they boarded too many people it was going to require someone getting off the plane. Honestly if flight crews orders you off the plane you are legally obligated to do so. Failure to do so could be considered interference in operation of a flight crew.

[bekkilyn]

38. Obviously $800 wasn't enough of an incentive to anyone

So offer a better incentive so that people will volunteer to leave willingly.

[LisaM]

41. The problem isn't the money they offer. It's the uncertainty of knowing when you'll get out.

I generally travel alone and I often have wiggle room. But it's for hours, not days. If they wanted to put me on a flight that leaves one or two hours later, I'd generally agree. I don't, however, usually have time to wait a whole day (not to mention the costs of getting to and from the airport each time) coming or going.

[bekkilyn]

43. They could have offered something that *someone* would have taken though

If the flight was that packed, then there are going to be people who would rather have a lot of extra stuff than be on that particular flight. For example, when my mom and aunt went on trips a lot, they would try to plan to be the people who got asked to take later flights because they wanted the vouchers or whatever was being offered.

[LisaM]

45. I'm just explaining why I generally never take the offer.

Most of my trips are under a week, so often the extra day is a real problem. On the return end, I usually get back the night before I have to work, so I'd have to be a whole day ahead on work in order to do that, and in my deadline-dependent job, that is not always possible.

[bekkilyn]

50. Probably the same for many

If you schedule transportation for a certain time, then it's reasonable to expect what (and when) you paid for. It's ridiculous that if you schedule for a certain time, they think it's fine and normal for you to be a day late. It's not normal and we don't need to meekly accept it just because "it's always been that way". (And I've gone off on a bit of a rant again, so not directed towards you particularly. )

[athena]

60. $5000 in cash.

You might not have taken it, but with all due respect, we are not talking about you here. Someone would have taken it. But United was too cheap and knew that it could get away with treating a minority man unfairly.

[LisaM]

64. Well even I would take that!

I just think they would get more takers on the vouchers if they guaranteed a reasonable timeline.

[athena]

74. It's not even pocket change for United.

They should have offered cash, not vouchers, and they should have kept increasing the offer until they had enough takers. Anything less is cheating people out of a seat they paid for in good faith, with the expectation that they would be on that flight.

Alternatively, United could have hired a limousine to take the crew to the destination, or chartered a flight. United had many more options available than the poor souls they kicked off the flight.

[LisaM]

79. Definitely.

They could have sent the bumped passengers via ground transportation for that matter. It's missing from the story when the bounced passengers would have gotten there.

[MountainMama]

159. I heard....

that was supposed to be around 3 PM the next day. The problem was that he had to see patients the next morning.

[LisaM]

164. And that's the problem with being bumped.

Why they couldn't get him there via ground transportation is a mystery, because I've had that happen (and it was on United, too, although obviously in a different permutation of the company - one where they happened to care about the customer).

[cos dem]

70. Exactly. If it takes 2 round-trip tickets in first class to Hawaii, so be it.

Especially if it is correct that this was an unusual last-minute thing. I've always seen deadhead crews board last, and only if there is space. Unless there was some really unusual situation, this should never have happened.

[LisaM]

42. They messed up by not having standby crew in Louisville.

This not having enough crew thing seems new. In the past year and a half, I've had several flights delayed because there is not a crew, or the crew is shorthanded. This tells me that they are over-working the crews they do have, and cutting it too close getting them from one flight to another.

I had this happen with a crew - we were delayed maybe an hour, and it was a late night flight - and I have to say, the crew themselves were as professional as could be and never once let on that they'd probably raced across the airport and started their next shift with no breaks.

As the unions break down, this is what happens. Does the average Joe on a place realize that taking power away from unions trickles down to situations like this? Probably not.

[Skittles]

56. no, it is NOT new

there are many reasons why crews end up short-handed

scheduling is NOT an exact science

[LisaM]

63. Let me be a little more specific.

The frequency with which I have seen this occur in roughly the last year and a half is what is new, not that it happens.

[jberryhill]

78. The FAA rest requirements are indeed new

[jberryhill]

77. It's the new FAA rest requirements

You can't just have a "backup crew" for each of thousands of flights in the system, particularly when a weather event has fucked everything up. There were extremely severe storms on Thursday, and it takes several days to get back to normal.

However, aircraft crew are required to have ten hours of rest - including eight hours of uninterrupted sleep - before getting on to the plane.

They were fresh out in Chicago and when that happens, they need every warm body within two hours flight time, who have been asleep for eight hours.

That rule change has caused a lot of crew issues, particularly if a flight is delayed for mechanical or weather reasons, and the crew times out.

[LeftInTX]

142. I had a flight delayed because they did not have a plane

It was on American.
It was from San Antonio to Dallas. (Often a booked route)
Weather was fine.
It was Friday, July 1st, so lots of travelers.

And they did not have a plane.

[Skittles]

55. yup

this happens every day - the difference here is, the guy refused to comply

[nadine_mn]

65. They told people at the gate that they needed 4 people to give up seats and still boarded them

so that was their first mistake

but there is a way to handle this that does not involve this level of physical violence

The crew and manager should have had the authority to offer a good package (airline miles/hotel/upgrades/cash instead of voucher)
but still there are de-escalation techniques.

The answer is not do it or else get knocked out and dragged off the flight. He was not a physical threat to anyone, he wasn't intimidating or abusive.

If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer - everything is a nail - and that doesn't work

[perdita9]

148. Exactly!

United made the mistake of boarding the plane. But I believe the law is written in their favor. If they ask you to leave, you're obligated to do so.

This is no way excuses the idiotic cop of course.

[regnaD kciN]

166. It isn't...

That's already been established. The clause that allows an airline to bump passengers only applies before boarding. Once boarded, the airline loses that right.

[delisen]

162. After that first mistake of boarding all passengers, when the man refused to surrender his seat

they could have gotten headquarter permission to increase ther compensation offer to all passengers.

With an escalating situation I think there would be passengers willing to take a significantly higher offer.

What would have happened before 9/11 and the militarization of airports?

[athena]

96. Why should the airline have that right?

After all, they sold you a ticket, didn't they? It's one thing to be delayed by things like weather or mechanical problems, but kicking people off the flight because the airline didn't plan ahead is not right. Why should paying customers have to solve the airline's logistical problems?

By your logic, Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus because the law said that she had to.

[perdita9]

149. Calm down!

I wouldn't have told Rosa Parks to go to the back of the bus--how insulting!

Airplane workers enjoy a number of protections most of us don't because they work in tin cans which fly in the air and where things can quickly get out of control. If they give you an instruction, you have to follow it, not refuse to put your seat belt on when there's a turbulence warning.

The airline has an obligation to keep traffic moving. They needed their workers at another airport and the fastest way to get them there was to fly them.

Were the actions of the cops acceptable? No. But the passenger is probably going to get a harsh lecture from someone in a black robe.

[bekkilyn]

171. The ends don't justify the means

United should have made alternate arrangements for their employees and not passed an internal problem caused by their own ineptitude over to their paying customers. The passenger did nothing ethically wrong. Hopefully United will have more than enough room for all the employees they want to put on their planes now as maybe everyone's volunteering not to fly with them.

[kcr]

106. Yeah. A plan we paid them to be on!

It's perfectly reasonable for them to just arbitrarily kick paid passengers off for whatever reason they see fit, and beat them bloody when they refuse. You see absolutely nothing wrong with that? And we should just continue to be paid passengers? Well, you can choose to be, but I certainly won't.

I think it's entirely reasonable that consumers demand corporations have some measure of restraint.

[perdita9]

150. Stop lying

I said the cop's actions were wrong. All I did was point out that, when you walk onto an air plane, you've actually given up some of your civil liberties. The flight crew does have the right to tell you to leave, for example. If you stage a sit down strike, you can be removed.

[annabanana]

137. That would be the laws written by the airline's lobbyists?

.. I thought so.

[perdita9]

151. FAA regulations

[6000eliot]

144. And this makes it NOT authoritarianism HOW exactly?

[delisen]

156. the law was once on the side of refusing service in public accommodations

such as restaurants.

I think only a life threatening emergency should allow a paid customer to be removed from a plane in that manner.

when did United know they wanted to send a crew to the destination-before or after boarding passengers.

what other means were available to them to get their crew 300-400 miles away-ground transport, another carrier?

compensation offered for volunteers-what not more offered?

contempt for customer's human rights-sort of like certain utilities, energy companies, persons who want to hold public office but not serve everyone,

[regnaD kciN]

165. WRONG!

They have the right to bump passengers before boarding. Once boarded, their contract doesn't allow them to do that.

This is the problem with the tacit "conventional wisdom" that big corporations always have the law on their side.

[C Moon]

18. The worst flight I ever had was on United. I promised myself to never use them again. nt

[BigDemVoter]

22. For what it's worth, I just called this shitty airline and told them I would NEVER fly with them

again. I'm sure they don't give a good goddamn, but it sure made me feel better. Fuck them!


I very politely asked, "Since when does United Airlines beat up its passengers to a point that they are bleeding?"
The agent very rudely said, "I refuse to comment on that."

I responded, "I have a ticket next month, and I don't relish the idea of getting beaten up just for the 'pleasure' of riding on one of United Airlines uncomfortable planes."

[Girard442]

25. I was stranded in O'Hare for two f***ing days by United.

There was a group of us, including some pretty savvy frequent flyers.

United stinks.

[hunter]

58. My wife and I once got stuck at O'Hare with a kid in diapers.

When you run out of diapers and clean clothes for your kid, and your luggage is god-knows-where, then you start to get a little desperate.

There's only so much you can do with an airport sink and paper towels.

I felt sorry for our fellow travelers once we were on planes, three in all, taking an absurdly convoluted path to Los Angeles. We really did stink, and our kid was very cranky and gassy too.

I noticed something shopping at Ikea recently... They have complimentary disposable diapers in their restrooms. That would have helped quite a bit.

I hate flying, and it's even worse now because the seats I can afford are so close together that my knees hit the seat in front of me. I can either leave my feet dangling, the passenger in front of me thinking I'm kicking the seat on purpose, or sit sort of sideways legs intruding on the aisle or someone's personal space, or very worst of both, "man-spreading." Whatever I do, nobody else is happy.

Just as bad, I have some phobias about flying. I don't like being trapped in a pressurized cigar tube 30,000 feet above the earth. With all civilized forms of transport you can open the windows.

When I was a kid we traveled from Los Angeles to Europe, first on train, then on ship. That was awesome, you really get a sense of the scale of this good Earth.

Airliners are isolating.

[BannonsLiver]

68. Isolating?

Hardly. In today's world of air travel you reach new levels of intimacy with your seat mate, who is often a complete stranger!

[hunter]

73. I once sat next to a floppy-headed snorer on an overnight airline flight.

He wouldn't have been any closer if he'd been in bed with me.

I was flying to my brother's wedding. I was trapped by my work schedule, no other options but flying...

The day of the wedding I was coming down with a horrific cold that I'm certain I caught on that flight.

My other brothers filled me up with tequila and pseudoephedrine and something possibly illicit they said would stop me coughing, and it worked, more or less.

The day after the wedding they took me to the airport, bought me two bloody marys at an LAX bar, and made sure I got onto the plane to Chicago. I was some kind of zombie when my wife picked me up.

That's not my worst flying story.

A mental health therapist of mine called it stinkin' thinkin' that I expect bad things every time I'm stuffed into an airplane, as if I'm bringing misery upon myself, but I'm convinced flying really does suck. I can easily picture myself as that doctor...

[Hokie]

27. If corporations are people this is assault and battery

Corporations have been given all the rights of individuals but are not subject to the same rules. If I invited someone into my home and then for no good reason changed my mind and drug them out forcibly I would be guilty of assault.

[athena]

82. Or if you sold them something

and then decided you wanted it back and forcibly took it away from them, after offering to give them coupons worth 80% of what they paid to use at your store, and having them decline the offer. You would be guilty of theft and assault. But United can do basically the same thing and be defended by DUers for not having done anything technically illegal.

[Azathoth]

87. Depends on the jurisdiction

In some states, you're allowed to throw them forcibly off your property if they refuse to leave, as long as you use "reasonable" force.

The real risk is civil liability.

[Dawson Leery]

30. It's boycott time.

Get the policy changed, CEO fired, and those worthless PIGS fired.

[AgadorSparticus]

98. It sure as hell is!!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

32. Its also not OK not to leave.

The terms of the ticket (which no one reads) clearly lays out that 1) airlines deliberately overbook, 2) if a passenger and the airline don't come to some other arrangement, then s/he will be involuntarily removed (aka bumped) and given prescribed cash benefits and travel on that airline or another airline. The airline was well within their rights to tell the passenger to leave the flight. This isn't new; this isn't Trump; it's old rules that a passenger refused to follow. Next time, read the terms of the ticket.

The flip side of the story is a midwest family that parlayed several offers from Delta to take alternative flights into $11K in travel vouchers.

[Ilsa]

35. Yeah, I suspect if they had raised the buyout again,

People might accept it. I think hitting four digits makes a difference in people's minds.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. Being honest, they'd have probably had me at $400

They'd have definitely had me at $800. Kid in college means travel vouchers = gold.

On edit: I saw a TV piece on this, but here is the article on the family I'm talking about:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/

[nadine_mn]

46. I mean honestly - they could have really offered a sweet deal at really no cost to the airline

such as an upgrade on a future flight, airline miles, in addition to the $400 voucher and hotel room stay. If they took it from a "make the customer happy" point of view instead of "we are not leaving this airport children, until you behave and do as we say" attitude that would have made a huge difference.

The loss of business & bad PR, not to mention potential lawsuit is way more expensive than what they could have done.

[Ilsa]

48. Yeah, that potential $1,000 buyout

Will be payment for the first 30 minutes of their lawyers' time.

[nadine_mn]

49. No one agrees to be physically assaulted or forcibly removed from their seat

If he was somehow causing a physical threat to other passengers or the flight staff then a certain degree of force is expected for the safety of others.

Just refusing to leave your seat does not deserve the type of force used in this scenario.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

62. You make the passenger sound like a blameless victim

The passenger refused a lawful order to leave the aircraft.

[bekkilyn]

66. And Rosa Parks refused a lawful order to move to the back of the bus

Just because something is technically "lawful" doesn't make it right or doesn't prevent the person resisting from being a victim. While it may be true that the airline needed transportation to get employees in time for a flight somewhere else, it's also true that the doctor needed that flight to get to his patients in time, and it's not wrong to expect to get the service you pay for at the very least.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

86. This ain't that

Rosa Parks fought for equality under the law. That's not this. This guy was unhappy because he was selected randomly (everyone had an equal chance) and was told to depart the plane.

"Doctor needed that flight to get to his patients in time." Bumped. Weathered in. Mechanical failure. Crew times out. Commercial passenger air travel is great, and it's mostly reliable, but it's never a sure thing. His being a doctor doesn't necessarily entitle him to preferential treatment. If he's a one-of-a-kind heart surgeon, neuro, or transplant guy he should have chartered or flown first class (you pay a helluva lot more, but you don't get bumped. Last I heard, the entire healthcare system was fleecing us, so doubtless he had the money).

[bekkilyn]

107. It's the same idea

Just because he didn't have the exact same reason as Rosa Parks doesn't mean that there aren't other valid reasons for passive resistance. This time it's against unfair business practices of corporations who think they have the moral right to do anything they please to their customers. Not to mention this man was BRUTALIZED as a result. The passenger paid for this seat and has a reasonable right to expect to receive the service he paid for. The same would go for ANY of the other passengers who lost United's "We're going to screw you" lottery. The difference being that the others meekly left while this man stood his ground, and good for him!!

Hopefully more people will protest against this outrageous behavior on the part of these airlines.

And your argument about him being a rich surgeon or whatever sounds like the excuses people make for being victims of other sorts of violence. "Oh if he would have used all his alleged money to buy a first class ticket, he wouldn't have gotten booted and beaten up." i.e. "If only she hadn't gone into that dive bar wearing those clothes, she wouldn't have gotten sexually assaulted." This is just blaming the victim.

(And just because someone's a doctor doesn't automatically mean they are rich. Thousands of dollars of student debt, personal life tragedies, etc.)

[delisen]

160. Divided Airlines -I guess they figure it's them vs. us. Something about the tone of the

US since 9/11.

[nadine_mn]

67. That doesn't require a violent response

so yeah, he was a blameless victim.

He bought a ticket, he showed up and took his seat. They asked for volunteers, he didn't volunteer. Then they chose him to leave - he said no. He was doing nothing to justify the violence that was shown

[Cha]

75. Well stated.. Mahalo, nadine

[Algernon Moncrieff]

88. Yes he did. He said "no"

Nothing entitles him to do that. The moment he says "no", legally, he's a stowaway.

Not blameless. Brought it on entirely on his own due to arrogance.

[nadine_mn]

91. No, he does not become a stowaway and no he doesn't deserve to get

Physically dragged from his seat. He was not threatening or intimidating anyone, he was not a physical threat to the safety of anyone on that plane. The force used to remove him was excessive. Where would you draw the line? I'm a big woman, and it would take more than one officer to pry my fat ass out of a seat. So are you advocating that the police use weapons on me? Because I refuse to leave a seat - a seat just a few minutes prior I was shown to by the same staff now telling me to leave after accepting my ticket which I paid for in exchange for services. A seat, that had 4 other people volunteered to leave, I would still be sitting in. A seat I was being told to vacate not because I was disruptive, rude, intoxicated, violent but because of the airline's error.

Had I shown up at the gate and was told sorry, you are bumped we needed your seat for our staff and I proceeded to force my way onto the plane...you bet - tackle me and arrest me.

But no where is it policy to physically drag someone doing nothing wrong. The force used was excessive.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

95. I'm a big guy.

Between 250 & 300. So if I refused to give up a seat that I was contractually obligated to give up, thus interfering with the lawful operation of the aircraft, and interfering with the journey of however many other people that were on the aircraft and needed to get where they were going, I would reasonably expect:

1) To be asked at least two more times to leave
2) Barring that, to have 2-3 cops of whatever uniform drag me off the plane - possibly taser me.
3) Expect to be detained and possibly arrested at that point.

Four other people did not volunteer to leave. The terms of the ticket says someone gets picked in that situation. I've traveled a lot; I know the rules. An executive in my company once thought she was immune because she was a platinum frequent flyer; she was wrong. She was livid, but she left the plane. (not a plane I was on, or trust me, I'd have been leaving the plane - I like ongoing employment).

[bekkilyn]

110. You've allowed yourself to be normalized to their objectionable behavior

Just because there's a rule doesn't make it right. We have plenty of rules upholding unethical behavior of corporations and we don't have to just passively accept them.

I don't expect much to happen during 45's term, but these airlines need to be regulated BIG TIME so that customers are protected against this sort of thing.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

135. No - I just don't find the behavior objectionable

As a general rule, if you insist on remaining somewhere you've been told to leave, you'll be removed by force.

Regulated big time? Have you flown recently? It doesn't get much more regulated. These are old rules. Some doctor decides the rules that apply to every other passenger don't apply to him and acts like a jackass.

[bekkilyn]

139. I'd be just as outraged had it happened to any of the passengers.

And yes, the airlines need to be regulated big time in favor of the CUSTOMERS so that this abuse doesn't keep happening. (And get rid of the TSA molestation while we're at it.) The customer didn't act like a jackass by not wanting to give up the service that he had already paid for. If United can't find compensation that people want, then they use other options such as chartering their own flights for their employees. Not punish paying customers for their own ineptness. These rules shouldn't apply to ANY of the passengers because they are not ethical and it is our moral duty to resist.

[nadine_mn]

132. The issue is level of force - and I am stunned that you think this situation

warranted that level of force

Officers have a continuum of force that they must use in order to maintain safety and diffuse a situation. Their level of force has to match the situation. This level of force did not match the situation - there were other techniques that the officers should have used (like parents say "use your words&quot before causing bodily harm. Even if we were to the point that using physical force was necessary (which again, this situation did not merit) there is a huge problem with throwing a 69 yr old small man against the seat, busting his lip and dragging him through the aisle.

Police officers are trained to use physical force as a last resort.

[kcr]

108. No. He did not legally become a stowaway.

No. Arrogant people do not deserve to be beaten to a bloody pulp. It's a good thing, otherwise internet message boards would be the most violent place on earth. It's the kind of place where there are people who think paid ticketed passengers can be "legal stowaways", for example.

[nadine_mn]

133. By law, a valid ticket means he CANNOT be a stowaway just for future reference

Stowaway is defined as “any alien who obtains transportation without the consent of the owner, charterer, master or person in command of any vessel or aircraft through concealment aboard such vessel or aircraft. A passenger who boards with a valid ticket is not to be considered a stowaway.” (8 USCS § 1101)

[Algernon Moncrieff]

136. He still failed to follow the commands of flight crew members

Still unlawful.

[delisen]

158. Sometimes the law bumps up against human rights.

[delisen]

157. as did many in the Civil Rights movement. some had the nerve to

remain sitting a lunch counters and refuse a lawful order to leave. Some of them got bloodied too.

[niyad]

174. what was LAWFUL about an order to remove himself from a seat he had paid for and

was LEGALLY occupying.

authoritarian much?

[regnaD kciN]

167. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

It's amazing to me how many people pontificate about "the terms of the ticket" without knowing what they are.

The clause that allowed United to bump passsngers is Rule 25, and it only applies prior to boarding. Once a passenger is boarded, as in this case, Rule 25 is out the window and Rule 21 takes effect, which only allows removal if the passenger is ill or is a threat to others on the flight.

We need to get over this automatic assumption that corporations are allowed to do whatever they please.

[warmfeet]

34. All the more reason not to fly. NT.

[Angry Dragon]

36. Trump should buy the airline

[CanonRay]

40. Well said!

[kimbutgar]

44. I fly standby all the time and am appalled they took paying passengers off to accommodate

Staff. I have been in my seat and told I had to leave to accommodate a laying passenger. Soneone is going to lose their job over how this situation was handled.

[nadine_mn]

47. They told people at the gate that they needed 4 people to give up seats

but still let everyone board. That is crazy - it's easier to not let someone on than to pull someone off. This is a lesson on how not to do business.

[TexasBushwhacker]

131. Yup, first come, first served

Those at the back of the line get bumped.

Better yet, in the event of a sold out flight, airlines should have other options than bumping paying passengers to make room for staff. In this particular case, the staff could have driven from Chicago to Louisville. It would have only taken them 2 hours longer.

[Takket]

51. so they only offered $800 and then decided to rip a an from his seat

that's the going rate on your personal welfare i guess. $800 then we start beating

in a situation like that the law should be they have to keep upping their offer until 4 people accept. make the airline pay whatever the free market says that seat is worth for someone to get up. i bet if they got up around $1500 they would have had their volunteers. but nope, it is just easier to beat people i guess.

[athena]

61. It's not even $800 in cash. It's $800 in useless vouchers

that probably have severe restrictions as to how and when they may be used.

[dalton99a]

83. And most people don't read the fine print

until it's too late

[dalton99a]

53. United Airlines: "Do what we say or we'll beat you up"

[Skittles]

54. this is not a new policy

it has been in place a long, LONG time

[yardwork]

59. I agree. There is no excuse for this. It's sickening.

[steve2470]

69. I can guarantee, if United had offered ENOUGH money to give up a seat....

someone would have bitten and left the plane. Hell, you offer me $2K or so to stay in some fleabag hotel overnight and I'll do it, unless I really have to get to my destination quickly. Yes, $2K is a lot more than usual, but it would have avoided this freaking debacle.

[Cha]

76. Or even $1500 or 1K.. they weren't being smart business

people or user friendly.

steve

[jberryhill]

80. It's illegal to offer more than $1350

[No Vested Interest]

99. This law can be changed, and should be changed to a much higher amount.

Either Congress and can change it, or the federal agency which set the limit.

I don't know if United Airlines has directed their staff to stop at $800, or if the staff decided on its own to not go any higher, but that was a huge mistake.

[steve2470]

100. ah ok nt

[Azathoth]

81. You don't have an inviolable right to sit on someone else's airplane

This isn't occupying a public park; it's occupying private property. And airlines explicitly have the right to involuntarily bump passengers on overbooked flights, provided they properly compensate them. That's all covered under airline and common carriage regulations.

The passenger was wrong; he rolled the dice and lost. Now UA are going to have to decide whether exercising their right to physically haul him off their plane is worth the lost revenue from the public backlash.

[athena]

84. You would have a point if the person did not have a ticket to sit on the plane.

When you sell someone an airplane ticket, you are entering into a contract. You are selling them a service, and that service is getting them from point A to point B by a certain time. Why do you think people pay for airplane tickets if the airline is not obliged to provide any kind of service in return? Most reasonable people would call that theft or fraud.

[Azathoth]

89. I suggest you read the DOT regulations

Start here:
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking

Airlines routinely overbook and they are allowed to bump passengers provided they compensate them. It's done all the time.

But putting all that aside, at the end of the day it's the airline's plane. This is like walking into the conference room of a corporation and refusing to leave because you erroneously believe you have a contractual right to sit there. Security is going to haul you out and they aren't going to be charged with assault unless they use grossly disproportionate force. You don't commit a potentially criminal act because of a contractual dispute.

[regnaD kciN]

168. And I suggest YOU read United's Contract of Carriage...

As it makes clear they only have the right to bump passengers BEFORE boarding them. They lost that right by seating him in the plane.

Seriously, I almost get the feeling some people here are United employees spreading the party line, and hoping no one actually checks on the facts.

[Azathoth]

179. Yes, I understand this is the new talking point

But I doubt a judge would agree. The idea that you somehow get to stay if you are mistakenly boarded is silly. And the airline will argue his boarding was a mistake, the lottery should have been run before boarding.

[AgadorSparticus]

90. This wasn't an overbooked flight. They wanted to bump a paying customer for their staff.

I am sorry but if i am paying money and making my travel plans based on this agreement, there is reasonable expectation for airlines to hold up their end of the deal by a certain time. Asking someone to take a later flight that afternoon is one thing. It is another to ask them to take a flight the next day. That is unreasonable. Getting to the destination is just half of it. What if it was 3 days later? How about a week? Time MATTERS. And United failed to keep their end of the deal. The consumer needs to be protected from this sort of corporate bullying.

But rest assured. United won't have to worry in the future about "overbooked" flights. No one will want to fly them.

[Azathoth]

92. Then you may have a lawsuit against them, not an inviolable right to sit on their plane

You're entitled to civil damages if a jury buys your interpretation of the regs. If they don't, then you're screwed. But either way, until they return a verdict, you're on private property without permission.

[AgadorSparticus]

97. Private property does not mean they can treat you however they want to.

Consumers have rights too.

There are a whole lot of Americans already not happy about the nickel and diming ways of airlines. Plastering this video all over social media and the news won't help their image.

Forget being a decent human being. This is just really shitty business practice. I have no doubt there are plenty of lawyers who can easily make mince meat of this case.... And I hope they do.

[CountAllVotes]

134. +1,000 !!

and I am one of them! I hope they rot in fucking hell bastards!

[NutmegYankee]

170. Passenger was contractually on plane, contract did not provide for removal in this manner.

The flight wasn't overbooked, passenger wasn't denied boarding, they had already boarded. Removal requires specific misbehavior, which didn't happen until after the illegal/contractual violation removal attempt. United is in the wrong.

[Azathoth]

180. No, removal of properly boarded passengers requires specific causes

But the airline will simply argue that the passenger was mistakenly boarded.

Suppose they had oversold a seat and the gate agent mistakenly allowed both ticket-holders to board and find seats. Are both of those passengers now in a loophole that allows them to stay onboard?

[niyad]

176. the flight was not "overbooked", it was full, and the airline wanted four of its employees

on it. the passengers were legally occupying seats for which they had paid, and had boarded and seated. this defense of the airline, the pretzel twisting to defend this disgusting behaviour, is sickening.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING JUSTIFIED THOSE RENT-A-THUGS BEHAVIOUR.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. It's all about THE RULES! The RULES cannot be wrong, the RULES must always be obeyed.

No piece of egregiously draconian shit can ever be criticized if it is in service to THE RULES.

Paralyzed man in wheelchair gets 25 years in prison for taking "too many" pain pills to manage his spinal pain? Sorry, it's THE RULES

Arthritic medical marijuana patient gets 10 years for a pot plant in her basement after the cops follow her car home from the hydroponics store? Sorry, THE RULES!

A drunk busted for taking a leak in an alley has to spend rest of his life on a sex offender registry? THE RULES!

SWAT team throws a flash grenade into a baby's crib because there's a report someone in the house has a dime bag? THE RULES


THE RULES RULE!

YAY RULES!

[dalton99a]

94. And: Trump won according to The Rules

Everyone obey The Rules

And Do Not Question The Rules!

[bekkilyn]

112. It's a very authoritarian stance (nt)

[regnaD kciN]

169. And when THE RULES say the exact opposite thing, who cares?

Just keep insisting that THE RULES say exactly what you want them to say, because, hey, they're THE RULES!!!

[Throck]

102. A simple solution would be to up the financial incentive to the next person being bumped.

You buy a seat, they bid to buy it back. The doctor would be taken out of the bid process and financial incentive goes to the next person.

How much is it going to cost them now?

[Heartstrings]

109. To me the point that is being lost is...

this man is a human being...he was brutally forced to vacate a seat that he had bought, paid for, and was occupying...he was 69 years old...he had someplace he needed to be as did everyone else on that plane...if anyone can view that video and side with the airlines on this, they may want to acquire some empathy...although it's pretty apparent that emotion is severely lacking in our country these days...never liked you United, and I'll take a bus before I'll ever fly your "unfriendly" skies again....

[nadine_mn]

111. I 100% agree with you

I don't understand how anyone is ok with treating another human being like this - like a piece of garbage.

There is no compassion, no empathy just comply or get injured. I just can't wrap my mind around how people can argue that this is the way to handle a situation.

[Heartstrings]

115. Unfortunately it seems to be

the norm these days...sad, pathetic and downright scary!

[bekkilyn]

119. This norm needs to be changed regardless of what "the rules" say. (nt)

[Heartstrings]

123. I agree 100%

However we're faced with an administration like no other ever...the norms have been revalued, and I'm not even sure what they are anymore.

[bekkilyn]

125. I suppose more customer resistance and outrage in the meantime

until the bad rules can be changed. In any case, we don't have to accept this administrations "norms" and it's probably more crucial than ever that we don't.

[Heartstrings]

129. Yes! Resist is the name of the game at this point in time...nt

[bekkilyn]

113. +1 (nt)

[uponit7771]

138. +1, it wasn't needed... they could've done something else and that would've been easier

[HAB911]

114. Speak with your wallet, it's all we have in a corpocracy

[treestar]

117. Yep, right wingers

if you talk with them about this, say he should have gotten off, as the cops were there, and taken the deal and all would be fine. Little authoritarian followers.

[AgadorSparticus]

141. You see them in spectacular display here too. Crazy...

[Johnny2X2X]

126. Agree

This was about profits. The almighty dollar mans more to corporations than the rights of the peasants. This is going to crush United for a while, they deserve it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

127. You know what's really nuts?

The flight from Chicago to Louisville takes about 2.5 hours. Driving from Chicago to Louisville takes about 4.5 hours. So time wise, we're only talking about 2 hours. Upon seeing the flight was full with PAYING passengers, why didn't the pilot tell the 4 flight crew employees to get a vehicle and drive? They still would have been adequately rested for the following days work.

[nadine_mn]

130. The flight was delayed over 2 hrs (in part so they could "clean up")

The crew could have been 1/2 to Louisville in that time. They could have even hired a driver... this whole thing could have been avoided if people stopped escalating and just fricking showed common sense.

I'm sorry - it's just so mind blowing to me.

[TNLib]

140. I agree we've become so use to it

That we now pay large sums of money to be bloodied and beaten senseless.

It's gotten beyond insane.

[6000eliot]

143. It especially happens to people of color.

Then, when the authoritarian is called on it, the past of the victim is brought up as a means of discrediting him or her. How many times have we seen this same narrative play out?

[niyad]

145. and the justifications for the "officers" behaviour, even on this board, is disgusting.

[delisen]

161. There are authoritarians on the left as well as the rights. Just follow orders. Obey.

[niyad]

172. I know, but it is depressing all the same to see it on the left.

[delisen]

173. I agree.

[delisen]

152. This is a fine analysis. United had so many options at so many points

that I think they are not a people-serving corporations.

Corporations are not all alike in their ethics and in respect for people.

[nadine_mn]

177. There are companies that truly want to make a customer happy

and then like United, companies that know your options are limited and know they can get away with being assholes. As consumers we need to really reward the corporations that step up and avoid the ones that only care about the bottom line.

The fact that CEO was so intent on painting the passenger as the bad guy shows that they don't care. He only started to say that they handled things wrong once public outcry led to stock prices going down.

It's just gross - greed is is replacing human decency at an alarming rate.

[The_Casual_Observer]

154. Standing tall against the customer is usually a mistake. Yeah there is some rule, but to go all

Barney Fife on that guy was a stupid mistake. They should have seen it was not going to end well and forget it. Instead they involved some big goons and hurt the guy, for what? The principle? They are going to be sued for excessive force and who knows what else.

[niyad]

175. the pretzel twisted defense of the airline on this board has been disgusting.

[nadine_mn]

178. I think that is why I am so upset about this

I understand the arguments people make when they say that the airline had a right to ask him to leave (I don't agree, but I understand). Where they lose me is when they say "what else were they supposed to do?" and justify the violence.

Every single time I read a DUer comment on the fact that violence was a natural consequence I just get so angry. Or the poster in an above comment say he would expect to be tased if he didn't move from his seat and that is acceptable to him.

How have we gotten to the point that violence is the go to for dispute resolution? How can a "progressive" forum have so many that are ok with this?

[niyad]

181. we have had many socks and puppets in the past. and, I agree with you that the ready

acceptance of violence as a response even here is chilling and disheartening.