Nonsense. I could as easily say that your defense of the passenger sure smells like you are inspired to transgress just as much. As I said before, I have no skin in the game. I was simply not blinded by consumer bias which underlied the original twitter storm that launched this situation into widespread attention. Again: Let's take each other at face value, respect each other's views as much as we would like our views to be respected, and not stoop to vapid mudslinging at people posting perspectives we don't like.
Precisely. How can an expense that transgresses company policy, which itself uses federal regulations as standard, be justified as anything other than dereliction of duty?
I'm guessing, after the storm of bad publicity this has created for UA, that they sincerely wish they'd been given the option to give in. And I'm guessing that plenty of other people would have accepted the involuntary bump, including those who servilely embrace authoritarianism. And as far as the guy getting away with it with impunity, they could easily have had him arrested, after he de-planed at the destination, for failing to follow crew instructions (and he could have sued them for doing so).
This argument is ludicrous; I really don't think I need to explain.
Reason did prevail. With regard to humanity: The typical American consumer and the American investor have together squeezed every last bit of humanity out of the airline industry with maniacal bargain hunting by consumers and dogged insistence on profitability and growth by investors. This is the reality we've crafted together, and now we have to live in it. The rules and laws are the last defense before we start back with sticks and stones.
Hindsight is always 20/20. However, for every incident like this there are literally hundreds of cases where they apply the same processes the same way and there is no appreciable negative consequence.
The argument is sound, but I understand why you would want to try to make it sound otherwise, given you are probably frustrated that there isn't a legitimate rebuttal to it.
Here's UA Contract of Carriage https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
Does it really say they can remove someone after boarding and occupying their assigned seat, to make space for someone else? It is long and I didn't read the entire agreement, but looking at the applicable sections, this is not so clear cut.
Rule 21, "Refusal to Transport" does not include overbooking or needing a seat for someone else, Rule 5 "Cancellation of Reservations" seems to cover travelers before they board, and United's "reseating" rights mean the traveler gets another seat. Finally, the entire section on denied boarding (rule 25) all describe a situation where the traveler has not yet boarded the aircraft.
It seems that once a passenger has boarded, the airline can move him or her, but as long as they are complying with the contract and federal regulations, it is not clearly spelled out that they can be involuntarily removed from the aircraft. Of course, I am not a lawyer, draw no conclusions from media reports, and offer no judgement on this situation.
No more than I see something wrong with society as a whole. If you want to right the inherent unfairness of our wealth-based consumer economy, come to church with me on Sunday, and we can get started. However, until we're successful realizing our vision, we live in the society that is. Render to Caesar...
We can agree on this, at least. Consumers bear a lot of the responsibility, and not just on air travel, by slavishly prioritizing price over everything else.
Really ? Hundreds of other incidents where it should have become clear to reasonable officers that there was going to be a major scene if they persisted in removing the passenger ? I think not.
For heavens' sake. The TV thief was committing a crime, clear to any reasonable person. I guess technically the UA drag-ee was, but only a crime against the airlines' callous contempt for their customers.
They move on to the next person after saying "we're going to notify police at the destination and have you arrested after you de-plane" or "we're going to notify TSA and you'll be unable to fly again until you appear in court to answer for your actions".
You're confounding two separate issues. The airline had nothing to do with the second half of removing the passenger, and if the passenger complied with the police, then we would never have heard of this situation, just like the hundreds of other times it has happened. The airline was only involved up until the passenger refused to deplane. After that it was 100% a police operation as the passenger had violated federal law.
Wrong, and until you accept and acknowledge that the passenger violated federal law, there's no way you're going to understand the situation about which you're attempting to comment.
People, individually, are indeed generally good. The airport police officer is almost surely a very good person, someone who just needs a bit more training and experience perhaps. The passenger may be a good person in other circumstances, for all we know. However, in the cesspool of the US airline system, too many people turn to savagery. And the American public as a whole, driven by Facebook and Twitter-driven FUD, is certifiably evil.
There's no difference between this and that, except a craven response by the Chicago airport police to kick the can down the road to the Louisville police. That's no solution.
I agree that this would be a better approach, but understand what you're saying: You would be giving gate agents the power to place any passenger on the no-fly list, pending an in-person hearing to work out the situation. Is that what you're really supporting?
Maybe a cop (or former cop), or someone else who is invested in the wave of authoritarianism that seems to be sweeping the country ?
