United Airlines forcibly removes passenger on flight they (did not) overbook

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Instead of choosing someone specifically to leave the plane, maybe they should just say that the plane won't take off until someone volunteers to leave the plane. Before long someone would.

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the Transportation Department imposes a fine of up to $27,500 per passenger for planes left on the tarmac for more than three hours without taking off (four hours for international flights).

They probably didn't want to gamble on it.

[EldrickOnIce]

I always find it interesting the hill we choose take a stand on. I'm sure some of the places I dig in seem as strange to others as piling on a beaten man does to me.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

but an airline representative told Business Insider that boarding refers to any period before the plane physically takes off.

Makes sense, once in the air you can't remove anyone from the plane, lol.

Interesting theory. Especially since there are a number of places where "denied boarding or removed from the aircraft" appears in the contract of carriage.

Eg "Service Animals must be properly harnessed or leashed and remain under the direct control of the Passenger. A Service Animal will be denied boarding or removed from the flight by UA if the animal cannot be contained by the passenger or otherwise exhibits behavior that poses a threat to the health or safety of other passengers or a significant threat "

Seems like UA lawyers thought those were 2 different things when they wrote the contract.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

What's your point? You rarely make one.

So someone with a bad history can be assaulted? Because what he's done in the past is totally irrelevant.

not going to bother trying to explain to you what I was trying to get across.
you'll misunderstand or ignore it, anyway. but no I didn't say he deserved it.

unrelated to the thread, are you one of those posters that follows someone around just to be a dink to them as much as you can?
if it makes you happy, as opposed to simply blocking a user you don't like, enjoy and have at it.
guess your reputation is justified.

have a nice day.

[sun]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

that's right. he may have had to get somewhere to trade drugs for sex or illegally prescribe painkillers. who knows?

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2.../22717141.html

Not even going to bother clicking the link, I assume it tells us that the victim is not an angel? How surprising.

This happens every single time one of these incidents blow up. There is no such thing as a perfect victim. This guy does not have to be the Dalai Lama in order for public outrage to proceed as necessary. He could be a bank robber, drug dealer, murderer, oilers fan (borderline) - his goodness or badness shouldn't be taken into account when deciding whether or not the airline completely fata'd this one up.

[sun]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

word to pimp

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is this a thing?

Please can it not be a thing?

NSFW

edit: ####, there is nudity in that video, my bad. Song is "Oh My Darling" by Run the Jewels.

Not sure if FA is using it in the right context though, unless I'm missing something. EL-P is shouting out Pimp C, he does the same to "Big" later in the same song.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by sun

Not even going to bother clicking the link, I assume it tells us that the victim is not an angel? How surprising.

This happens every single time one of these incidents blow up. There is no such thing as a perfect victim. This guy does not have to be the Dalai Lama in order for public outrage to proceed as necessary. He could be a bank robber, drug dealer, murderer, oilers fan (borderline) - his goodness or badness shouldn't be taken into account when deciding whether or not the airline completely fata'd this one up.

True, no one ever deserves to have physical violence imposed on them.

BUT...color me not shocked that someone who is morally OK with distributing highly addictive narcotics in exchange for sexual favours is also someone who has no qualms about holding up an entire airplane of passengers and believes the rules don't apply to them.

That he tried to use being a doctor to justify keeping his seat despite his being a terribly unethical one makes me not like this guy even more.

[t0rrent98]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ocial-facebook

[Flames in 07]

Ugh

1. Airlines can remove you. It sucks when it's you but all else the same, flights will cost less as a result. Weather we choose to read the small print or not, it's still part their right that we sign up for.

2. Airlines should be forced to buy back seats at an agreed price. when they need them. They should keep offering a higher price until someone accepts. Be it because they over sold or because they need to reposition staff. If they want the upside they should accept all of the downside.

3. The guy probably should have got up and left the minute security showed up. The guy basically threw a temper tantrum.

4. The fake cop with small man syndrome should be fired and should find a new line of work.

5. United sucks at PR. A lot. Again, if you want to retaliate then fly with someone else.

Settle down and end thread now?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sun

Not even going to bother clicking the link, I assume it tells us that the victim is not an angel? How surprising.

It depends. If you think preying on vulnerable people with addiction problems so you can make some money and play with their wieners is a good thing, than this guy was definitely an angel.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened and doesn't change the facts of the situation, but he is someone of questionable moral character. It makes the claim from some of the United staff that he was belligerent more believable.

[sun]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It depends. If you think preying on vulnerable people with addiction problems so you can make some money and play with their wieners is a good thing, than this guy was definitely an angel.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened and doesn't change the facts of the situation, but he is someone of questionable moral character. It makes the claim from some of the United staff that he was belligerent more believable.

I am confused by literally every sentence in this post.

[V]

They should just offer the max amount, seal the doors and tell the passengers to let them know when they've decided who's going to get off the plane. Guaranteed this gets taken care of a lot faster.

[Stud_McCool]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

They should have just announced on the intercom until Mr. Dao agreed to follow procedures, the plane would be delayed. Eventually, someone would get bored enough to take the money or Mr. Dao would get uncomfortable enough to leave.

You're suggesting they should have built a mob mentality against this guy, who did nothing wrong, to try and bully him off the flight is better a solution?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It depends. If you think preying on vulnerable people with addiction problems so you can make some money and play with their wieners is a good thing, than this guy was definitely an angel.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened and doesn't change the facts of the situation, but he is someone of questionable moral character. It makes the claim from some of the United staff that he was belligerent more believable.

Except that statement completely falls apart when read with objective witness statements and the video.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sun

I am confused by literally every sentence in this post.

I just gave you the synopsis of his criminal record. The guy sounds like a scum bag.

Originally Posted by Stud_McCool

You're suggesting they should have built a mob mentality against this guy, who did nothing wrong, to try and bully him off the flight is better a solution?

I wasn't being totally serious, but it isn't accurate to say that he did nothing wrong. Once selected to be bumped, he was required to exist the plane and he refused.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Except that statement completely falls apart when read with objective witness statements and the video.

The video shows absolutely nothing from before the police arrived.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

and word to pimp

How about holding an auction of sorts. The first person to agree to get off the plane gets handed $5. Every ten seconds that there isn't a taker the offer increases by $5 until there is a taker. It would cost money to do that but probably less than not overbooking planes, and it's a much better idea than forcefully kicking people off planes.

[MRCboicgy]

Bringing up his past transgressions - for which he's already paid his debt to society - is victim shaming. It's no different than when they dig up the sexual history of an assault victim to prove she was no angel.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Bringing up his past transgressions - for which he's already paid his debt to society - is victim shaming. It's no different than when they dig up the sexual history of an assault victim to prove she was no angel.

That makes no sense, unless that person's sexual history was that of a being a sexual predator.

We are talking about someone with a serious criminal record, not someone who had consensual sex with multiple partners. Your comparison is way off. And paying a debt to society doesn't mean the person still doesn't deserve a reputation for what they did.

[nik-]

This thread is ridiculous.

Crap airline ####s up and then is part of a terrible decision and yet here we are talking about this guy's past. People will defend anything.

[PepsiFree]

I don't even think the guy should be 100% blame-free in this, but I can't for the life of me figure out how his history is relevant in any way.