United passenger forcibly removed from overbooked flight..
Discussion
BIANCO said:
If the staff didn't get to where they needed to be than i would have thought there would have been a good chance an entire flight would have needed to be canceled. That's hundreds of people not getting where they are going not just one.
The fact is the plane is private property and if owner whats you out you get out no matter if you have paid to be there. If in the process they brake a contact with you all you can do is send in a compliant and demand compensation. What you cant do it turn in physical and refuse to leave.
They might well have needed the staff on that flight. That doesn't excuse involuntarily bumping passengers that have already boarded. That was not their only option.The fact is the plane is private property and if owner whats you out you get out no matter if you have paid to be there. If in the process they brake a contact with you all you can do is send in a compliant and demand compensation. What you cant do it turn in physical and refuse to leave.
Nobody is debating whether the airline could legally have him removed.
Through no fault of his own, he gets told that they're booting him. He is a doctor, and has patients to see. The airline plough on regardless, and get security involved. I believe he was trying to phone his lawyer (WRT his patients) when they hauled him off and basically knocked him unconscious.
In the scenario he found himself in, was it unreasonable to "get physical"? (Aka remain seated peacefully). Clearly, the majority thinks it was entirely reasonable, hence the s
tstorm on social media.boxxob said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Beat him? Doesn't look like it from that short video.
Some screaming, nose bouncing off the seat opposite, being dragged out apparently unconscious. All to the sound of other passengers' distress. It doesn't sound like they've used charm and wiles on him, does it? I think they have all handled it extremely badly, including the passenger who wouldn't accept no for an answer.
don't know what happened with the quoting here, did nothing different from the norm?
Edited by wc98 on Monday 10th April 21:22
Edited by wc98 on Monday 10th April 21:24
BIANCO said:
They did act professional they did keep upping the price but then as a company and running a business got to the point just to ultimately just ask for someone to get off as is their right to do so.
What they didn't count on is that the generally public have now turned into spoilt 3 year old children that need to dragged kicking and screaming because they haven't got their own way.
I think United have spent a teeny bit more than $400 on this so far. If it were my business I'd rather not have the global PR sWhat they didn't count on is that the generally public have now turned into spoilt 3 year old children that need to dragged kicking and screaming because they haven't got their own way.
tstorm to deal with for the sake of upping the compo. Those studying an MBA with Public Relations/ Marketing - This case study will feature in next years course.
BIANCO said:
wc98 said:
BIANCO said:
If it was such a sort drive then why all the fuss about this guy not getting off? he could have just driven himself?
the bloke had paid for the seat and apparently had patients to attend to in his line of work (i do wonder if that has been embellished slightly). he did nothing wrong ,it was the airlines balls up. their job to sort it professionally . keep upping the $ incentive and the required amount of people would have moved.getting the airport police to forcibly remove him was sheer stupidity. outside africa i doubt this would happen anywhere else or with any other airline.
What they didn't count on is that the generally public have now turned into spoilt 3 year old children that need to dragged kicking and screaming because they haven't got their own way.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Beat him? Doesn't look like it from that short video.
Some screaming, nose bouncing off the seat opposite, being dragged out apparently unconscious. All to the sound of other passengers' distress. It doesn't sound like they've used charm and wiles on him, does it?La Liga said:
Extraction from a plane with someone who is resisting is hard work and quite messy given the tight space. It's also quite risky given how close objects are as the passenger found out given his head ended up in the opposite seat's arm rest.
It's also quite unnecessary given how he'd done nothing other than expect the ride home he'd paid for.BIANCO said:
wc98 said:
BIANCO said:
If it was such a sort drive then why all the fuss about this guy not getting off? he could have just driven himself?
the bloke had paid for the seat and apparently had patients to attend to in his line of work (i do wonder if that has been embellished slightly). he did nothing wrong ,it was the airlines balls up. their job to sort it professionally . keep upping the $ incentive and the required amount of people would have moved.getting the airport police to forcibly remove him was sheer stupidity. outside africa i doubt this would happen anywhere else or with any other airline.
What they didn't count on is that the generally public have now turned into spoilt 3 year old children that need to dragged kicking and screaming because they haven't got their own way.
Bigends said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Beat him? Doesn't look like it from that short video.
Some screaming, nose bouncing off the seat opposite, being dragged out apparently unconscious. All to the sound of other passengers' distress. It doesn't sound like they've used charm and wiles on him, does it?La Liga said:
Extraction from a plane with someone who is resisting is hard work and quite messy given the tight space. It's also quite risky given how close objects are as the passenger found out given his head ended up in the opposite seat's arm rest.
It's also quite unnecessary given how he'd done nothing other than expect the ride home he'd paid for.In all seriousness, it may turn out to be wholly inappropriate and unlawful. If that's the case the man should be compensated and appropriate action taken against the people who acted in a manner they should not have.
Gareth79 said:
dazwalsh said:
Or give the staff members the 800 dollars and tell em to make their own way there and keep the change. Hey presto, no PR disaster.
I'm assuming that in this specific case the staff absolutely had to make that flight to get to the flight they were due to crew, and there were no alternatives, hence having to involuntarily bump paying passengers. If that wasn't the case then United are complete tts....Remember it was the airline who screwed up. The passengers we're not demanding money, they all simply wanted to get the service they paid for.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Tellingly, this began to impact UA's share price this afternoon. Weak statement from CEO probably didn't help
How so considering the price closed nearly 1% higher today? ClaphamGT3 said:
This could seriously ding them.
Absolutely, investors won't be looking at oil prices, passenger manifests, pension liabilities, dividends etc. They'll be using one controversial 'viral video' no one will care about in a day or two to make their investment decisions... La Liga said:
Nanook said:
Was it a computer that selected him at random? They were asking for volunteers, as it would appear is their policy. When they didn't get enough, they singled out this man to be removed. Was that in line with their terms and conditions, some people say yes, some people, having read them, disagree.
Regardless of how, someone was going to get chosen. Nanook said:
Could they have dealt with it better? More than that, have they dealt with it in a wholly unprofessional manner, that leaves them open to action from the other party? Absolutely.
I don't know the full circumstances but I think it would have been much better had it been dealt with at the gate rather than on the plane. John145 said:
Bianco, la liga, et al come across as complete tts.
The only circumstance in which you should be forced off a plane is if you've fked up.
You mustn't in a civilised society be able to man handle someone off your plane because your airline has cocked up the bookings.
Let's be clear; a man who did nothing wrong was assaulted be an unnamable, faceless authority.
No wonder the Nazis got away with such st initially with these authoritarian apologists so common.
Brilliant, calling people tts.The only circumstance in which you should be forced off a plane is if you've f
ked up.You mustn't in a civilised society be able to man handle someone off your plane because your airline has cocked up the bookings.
Let's be clear; a man who did nothing wrong was assaulted be an unnamable, faceless authority.
No wonder the Nazis got away with such s
t initially with these authoritarian apologists so common.ts with a bonus Goodwin. You're right, a private company enforcing part of their contact after initially asking the chap to move is loads like killing millions of people.
TeamD said:
Everyone, other than La Liga...why are you feeding the troll (in the interests of clarity, La Liga == The Troll
Thanks for the clarity. My fundamental view is that if you enter into a contract then you should adhere to it. If you don't like the risks of the contract then don't enter into it.
That's not 'trolling', that's my genuine view.
Rovinghawk said:
It's also quite unnecessary given how he'd done nothing other than expect the ride home he'd paid for.
It's a perfectly reasonable expectation. But so is the expectation the circumstances encompassed within the T&Cs / contract you've voluntarily entered may occur. If you don't accept such risks then buy a more expensive seat. You don't always get your cake and to eat it.
Defending a company's right to assault people just because they can't plan properly.
You have no idea why that doctor needed to get to his destination. Nor does the airline know why he needed to get there. Nor does anyone have a damn right to know why he needed to get there.
To buy a ticket to a destination, overbook, then assault, stinks of mafia tactics.
Somehow thinking that this is all OK as there's a piece of paper somewhere saying he's signed up for a beating is bulls
t of the highest order.Let's be absolutely clear here: THIS MAN WAS ASSAULTED, WITH POWER OF THE STATE, FOR NOTHING MORE THAN PROFIT.
Defend that.
John145 said:
Let's be absolutely clear here: THIS MAN WAS ASSAULTED, WITH POWER OF THE STATE, FOR NOTHING MORE THAN PROFIT.
It may well turn out to be an assault. However, without knowing the specific laws the chaps in the US operate under I can't make that conclusion because in order for it to be an assault it needs to be unlawful. In order to judge lawfulness I'd need to know the law. See the snag? You can make the conclusion, because it appears recognising such limitations escape you.
boxxob said:
I am surprised that the passenger hasn't been charged with an offence after running back aboard the plane he'd already been ejected from.
He apparently went back on to get his hand luggage because he was unconscious when he disembarked the first time.Shows how professional the security guys were. Overeacting with violence initially and then being so lax with their securing and detention techniques that he got back on board.
Lucky for them he wasn't a genuine security risk really. I expect they will be looking for new jobs very shortly.
BIANCO said:
I hope the next time all the people who are defending this guy are on a flight and are in a similar situation where someone is asked to leave and doesn't. And then spend the next 4 hours sat at the terminal trying to resolve the issue because they don't get off.
I do wonder how supportive of the person they would be then.
If where on that flight, what would you have wanted them to do, pick someone else which then could have been you?
The idea that if you buy a ticket you somehow then own the plane is just stupid. Has for people saying he did nothing wrong, he did he didn't get off when told to.
I'm all for a good level of consumer rights but it does seem many people have now got a massive over inflated expectation of what they can and cannot expect.
I've fortunately not flown on a regular basis for years, but used to fly dozens of times a year for a decade.I do wonder how supportive of the person they would be then.
If where on that flight, what would you have wanted them to do, pick someone else which then could have been you?
The idea that if you buy a ticket you somehow then own the plane is just stupid. Has for people saying he did nothing wrong, he did he didn't get off when told to.
I'm all for a good level of consumer rights but it does seem many people have now got a massive over inflated expectation of what they can and cannot expect.
In that time, I saw plenty of flights where they'd overbooked and had to leave people behind. A particular highlight was the Friday after the 1996 channel tunnel fire, when BA kindly compensated me to the tune of more than a month's rent for delaying me by three flights home from Brussels then putting me up in a hotel (the Holiday Inn in Zavantem, which at the time rented out PlayStations and two games for a fiver a night) overnight.
One thing I never saw once was anyone being pulled off a flight after they'd boarded!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff