United passenger forcibly removed from overbooked flight..
Discussion
BIANCO said:
Do you think if someone is asked to leave private property but refuse to do so. They shouldn't be made to.?
So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
Irrelevant comparison.So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
The plumber isn't paying to be sat there is he and house owner isn't taking that payment in return for providing a service.
La Liga said:
John145 said:
La Liga said:
John145 said:
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
I expect they'll be within their rights to deny him the seat once he was seated on the plane. Whether the force used to remove him was lawful is a separate matter.
Without knowing the legal framework the people who removed him were working under then it's not possible to judge the lawfulness of the actions.
BIANCO said:
Do you think if someone is asked to leave private property but refuse to do so. They shouldn't be made to.?
So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
I don't think you understand what private property is. Or really what property is.So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
You can't compare a home to a public transportation vehicle.
This is going to be a case study in PR mismanagement taught in business schools for years to come (maybe).
Not only was social media in meltdown abut the actual incident, but the first statement from the UA CEO chucked a gallon of 93 octane on the social media firestorm:
Newsspeak straight from the pages of Orwell's 1984.
"“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”
Copious use of corporate bulls
t bingo ("re-accommodating?) and meaningless platitudes and not a scintilla of concern about the welfare of the passenger attacked in his seat and video'd with blood on his face.
It should have been along the lines of:
"I am shocked and appalled at the incident on Flight XX. This conduct in no way reflect's United's standards. There is no excuse for what took place. All personnel involved have been suspended from front line duty pending an exhaustive root and branch review of our booking protocols. We have already made an ex gratia initial payment of $xx to the victim and will be meeting with him this week to ensure he is adequately compensated for the humiliation and unauthorised assault he suffered"
Etc etc
It's not fruquing rocket science. Phuqtard airline deserves everything coming to it.
Resignations a-plenty I would expect.
Not only was social media in meltdown abut the actual incident, but the first statement from the UA CEO chucked a gallon of 93 octane on the social media firestorm:
Newsspeak straight from the pages of Orwell's 1984.
"“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”
Copious use of corporate bulls
t bingo ("re-accommodating?) and meaningless platitudes and not a scintilla of concern about the welfare of the passenger attacked in his seat and video'd with blood on his face. It should have been along the lines of:
"I am shocked and appalled at the incident on Flight XX. This conduct in no way reflect's United's standards. There is no excuse for what took place. All personnel involved have been suspended from front line duty pending an exhaustive root and branch review of our booking protocols. We have already made an ex gratia initial payment of $xx to the victim and will be meeting with him this week to ensure he is adequately compensated for the humiliation and unauthorised assault he suffered"
Etc etc
It's not fruquing rocket science. Phuqtard airline deserves everything coming to it.
Resignations a-plenty I would expect.
ClaphamGT3 said:
La Liga said:
ccusations of nativity from someone trying to assign cause and effect to a day's tight trading range on an index where volume is primarily algorithmic on a share in a 5 year uptrend near its all time highs.
Time will tell. In the meantime, do explain to us your IR experience; we're all agog....Investors in Airlines are looking at fundamentals and the long-term, not one day of bad PR from an isolated incident.
audidoody said:
This is going to be a case study in PR mismanagement taught in business schools for years to come (maybe).
Not only was social media in meltdown abut the actual incident, the first statement form the UA CEO chucked a gallon of 93 octane on the social media firestorm:
Newsspeak straight from the pages of Orwell's 1984.
"“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”
Copious use of corporate bullst bingo ("re-accommodating?) and meaningless platitudes and not a scintilla of concern about the welfare of the passenger attacked in his seat and video'd with blood on his face.
It should have been along the lines of:
"I am shocked and appalled at the incident on Flight XX. This conduct in no way reflect's United's standards. There is no excuse for what took place. All personnel involved have been suspended from front line duty pending an exhaustive root and branch review of our booking protocols. We have already made an ex gratia initial payment of $xx to the victim and will be meeting with him this week to ensure he is adequately compensated for the humiliation and unauthorised assault he suffered"
Etc etc
It's not fruquing rocket science. Phuqtard airline deserves everything coming to it.
Resignations a-plenty I would expect.
I suspect that "re-accommodating" is about to become the defining phrase of his career.Not only was social media in meltdown abut the actual incident, the first statement form the UA CEO chucked a gallon of 93 octane on the social media firestorm:
Newsspeak straight from the pages of Orwell's 1984.
"“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”
Copious use of corporate bulls
t bingo ("re-accommodating?) and meaningless platitudes and not a scintilla of concern about the welfare of the passenger attacked in his seat and video'd with blood on his face. It should have been along the lines of:
"I am shocked and appalled at the incident on Flight XX. This conduct in no way reflect's United's standards. There is no excuse for what took place. All personnel involved have been suspended from front line duty pending an exhaustive root and branch review of our booking protocols. We have already made an ex gratia initial payment of $xx to the victim and will be meeting with him this week to ensure he is adequately compensated for the humiliation and unauthorised assault he suffered"
Etc etc
It's not fruquing rocket science. Phuqtard airline deserves everything coming to it.
Resignations a-plenty I would expect.
In amongst the recriminations, the head of PR in his private office has got to be in line for the biggest kicking of all for letting him put that car-crash of a statement out
La Liga said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
La Liga said:
ccusations of nativity from someone trying to assign cause and effect to a day's tight trading range on an index where volume is primarily algorithmic on a share in a 5 year uptrend near its all time highs.
Time will tell. In the meantime, do explain to us your IR experience; we're all agog....Investors in Airlines are looking at fundamentals and the long-term, not one day of bad PR from an isolated incident.
Interesting to hear Simon Calder (fairly famous travel writer) on the radio talking common sense firstly but also making it very clear that as a traveller you have feck all rights and if asked to leave "just do so quietly...particularly in the US". I imagine next to no-one as a traveller (especially so in the US where flying is like catching a bus in the UK) knows they have no right to occupy a seat they believe they have booked and paid for. Funny old world.
Dire management on the plane, probably borne of dire procedures.
Dire management at a senior level in response.
Further cements in my mind the fallacy of the oft banded slogan "the land of the free" (from the perspective of the common citizen).
PH response doesn't surprise me.
Dire management on the plane, probably borne of dire procedures.
Dire management at a senior level in response.
Further cements in my mind the fallacy of the oft banded slogan "the land of the free" (from the perspective of the common citizen).
PH response doesn't surprise me.
La Liga said:
John145 said:
La Liga said:
John145 said:
La Liga said:
John145 said:
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
I expect they'll be within their rights to deny him the seat once he was seated on the plane. Whether the force used to remove him was lawful is a separate matter.
Without knowing the legal framework the people who removed him were working under then it's not possible to judge the lawfulness of the actions.
If it got to the point whereby the Airline wanted him removed and such a request was lawful and there was no other alternative (they'd tried to negotiate etc which it sounds like they had), then force needs to be used. As I wrote some time ago, it's never a clean affair extracting someone from a plane.
Him hitting his head was obviously undesirable but I doubt it was intentional which is the worst part of it.
John145 said:
BIANCO said:
John145 said:
Let's look at the facts as we see it:
- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
Do you think if someone is asked to leave private property but refuse to do so. They shouldn't be made to.?- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
No, they do not have that right.
If you were stood up windmilling with your cock, then yes, you've lost your right.
If you've sat there doing as everyone else doing then no, they don't have that right.
Section 21, Refusal of Transport.
Now show us the equivalent clause on your cinema ticket.
Have United Airlines handled things badly? Undoubtedly.
Were they with their rights to remove this chap from the aeroplane? Yes.
Is it a foolish thing to conduct a sit-down protest on an airliner because you didn't read the contract? Yes.
Would you expect to be the recipient of brusque handling - in the US particularly - if you don't leave an airliner when asked nicely? Absolutely.
Sheepshanks said:
They do like the play on the "it's a Federal offence to not obey an instruction from cabin crew" thing at every opportunity. Travelling on my own for work, when I've carefully selected a seat, I've been asked to move several times for other passengers convenience. Saying "I'm fine here, thanks" really doesn't go down well. Only once did they give up.
Is it your right to stay put?
skahigh said:
Which part of this do you think entitled UA to remove this passenger?
I read the whole thing and didn't find anything that appeared to apply to this particular passenger?
Section H.2I read the whole thing and didn't find anything that appeared to apply to this particular passenger?
"Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
The captain directed the passenger to leave the aircraft, as part of his duties. The passenger refused, in breach of contract.
BIANCO said:
Evanivitch said:
I don't think you understand what private property is. Or really what property is.
You can't compare a home to a public transportation? vehicle.
Didn't know that United airlines was publicly owned? You can't compare a home to a public transportation? vehicle.
La Liga said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
La Liga said:
ccusations of nativity from someone trying to assign cause and effect to a day's tight trading range on an index where volume is primarily algorithmic on a share in a 5 year uptrend near its all time highs.
Time will tell. In the meantime, do explain to us your IR experience; we're all agog....Investors in Airlines are looking at fundamentals and the long-term, not one day of bad PR from an isolated incident.
You would appear to have zero concept of the fragility of reputation.
How many (as a %) of future fliers do you think will now look for alternatives? 1%?, 2-3%?, 80+%? - when they have the chance to 'stick it to the man'?
PR-wise, this was an absolute disaster. That you can't see this (and acknowledge so) is worrying. And if I'm being honest, telling.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff