United passenger forcibly removed from overbooked flight..
Discussion
boxxob said:
By the same token: Perhaps this doctor (of what we don't yet know) failed to plan properly, either by not using an airline with a history of better customer service or by not having either an alternative flight / mode of transport to fallback to? Perhaps he ignored the circumstance that was known at point of purchasing the ticket and ignored the statements (as-reported) made to the passengers before they boarded the flight? If he did indeed have a medical emergency, he could have instructed the airline crew of this at the earliest opportunity. You would expect that such a trained professional should have few issues in communicating their requirements in a calm, assertive manner (and perhaps he did, since we don't have his side)?
It's hard to know where to begin with that...tumble dryer said:
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.
It's the idea a fundamentally sound equity is going to get rocked by an isolated incident people are talking about for a day or two is what I find a little silly.
jmflare said:
La Liga said:
ou're being a little silly then.
I'm looking at each aspect from a critical point of view and given due consideration to what is unknown (the specific laws etc).
What's your stance on the actions of the cop involved?I'm looking at each aspect from a critical point of view and given due consideration to what is unknown (the specific laws etc).
If they were lawfully entitled to remove him then the force used doesn't seem disproportionate. It's never going to be neat and tidy on an aircraft.
La Liga said:
epends on the laws they were operating under.
If they were lawfully entitled to remove him then the force used doesn't seem disproportionate.
Repeated, if this helps:If they were lawfully entitled to remove him then the force used doesn't seem disproportionate.
Section H.2
"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.
See above.
eharding said:
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.
If that were the case, the rule would just say "Passengers may be refused service for any reason" rather than giving a list of reasons.
The passenger was not in breach of any of the stated conditions so could not under the terms of the contract as you have highlighted be asked to leave the aircraft.
BIANCO said:
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.
Rights are derived from responsibility in my opinion. When you're fulfilling your responsibilities then your right should be protected.
So yes if the cinema says get out you need to get out as long as it not just because you are black, gay have upside-down head or what ever. Granted they would find it hard to justify it if they just randomly said leave and may need to refund or even compensate you as they have broken a contact but that's it. They don't even need to say sorry.
Just because you give someone some money doesn't mean you own them like a slave.
skahigh said:
That really doesn't make much sense.
If that were the case, the rule would just say "Passengers may be refused service for any reason" rather than giving a list of reasons.
The passenger was not in breach of any of the stated conditions so could not under the terms of the contract as you have highlighted be asked to leave the aircraft.
You've just grasped the fact that indeed "Passengers may be refused service for any reason", that particular section of the contract is the catch-all.If that were the case, the rule would just say "Passengers may be refused service for any reason" rather than giving a list of reasons.
The passenger was not in breach of any of the stated conditions so could not under the terms of the contract as you have highlighted be asked to leave the aircraft.
By refusing the direction of the flight crew to leave the aircraft, he was in breach of contract. Simple as that.
Having been refused service, compensation may well be due - the irony being that having breached contract, he might now not be owed anything from the airline.
I looked for bad pr for UA< looks like they have form. 
http://sentium.com/a-public-relations-disaster-how...
Seems also the Chicago aviation department are distancing themselves slightly from UA. No one to get sued here yessiree jimbob.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-airli...
"A Chicago airport police officer who helped drag the man from the seat has been put on leave, pending an investigation, the city’s aviation department said.
“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the department,” the agency said in a statement."
http://sentium.com/a-public-relations-disaster-how...
Seems also the Chicago aviation department are distancing themselves slightly from UA. No one to get sued here yessiree jimbob.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-airli...
"A Chicago airport police officer who helped drag the man from the seat has been put on leave, pending an investigation, the city’s aviation department said.
“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the department,” the agency said in a statement."
jmflare said:
La Liga said:
f you can think of a nice easy and tidy way to take someone off an aircraft who refuses to move and resists feel free to propose it.
Not that, that's for sure...eharding said:
You've just grasped the fact that indeed "Passengers may be refused service for any reason", that particular section of the contract is the catch-all.
By refusing the direction of the flight crew to leave the aircraft, he was in breach of contract. Simple as that.
Having been refused service, compensation may well be due - the irony being that having breached contract, he might now not be owed anything from the airline.
Thanks for your condescension, it's much appreciated.By refusing the direction of the flight crew to leave the aircraft, he was in breach of contract. Simple as that.
Having been refused service, compensation may well be due - the irony being that having breached contract, he might now not be owed anything from the airline.
So, if it's as straight forward as you believe, why do you think UA's conditions state a specific set of reasons why someone may be refused travel?
La Liga said:
jmflare said:
La Liga said:
f you can think of a nice easy and tidy way to take someone off an aircraft who refuses to move and resists feel free to propose it.
Not that, that's for sure...eharding said:
You've just grasped the fact that indeed "Passengers may be refused service for any reason", that particular section of the contract is the catch-all.
By refusing the direction of the flight crew to leave the aircraft, he was in breach of contract. Simple as that.
Having been refused service, compensation may well be due - the irony being that having breached contract, he might now not be owed anything from the airline.
By refusing the direction of the flight crew to leave the aircraft, he was in breach of contract. Simple as that.
Having been refused service, compensation may well be due - the irony being that having breached contract, he might now not be owed anything from the airline.
jmflare said:
La Liga said:
s expected, typical armchair expert who can criticise without offering any alternative / solution.
I'm not sure how to run a country either but I can call out Kim Jong Un as being wrong...PurpleAki said:
La Liga said:
jmflare said:
La Liga said:
f you can think of a nice easy and tidy way to take someone off an aircraft who refuses to move and resists feel free to propose it.
Not that, that's for sure...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff