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

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So he is an autistic doctor?

You are trying to divert attention from a real issue to a made-up issue using wisecracks. No, I don't think he's an autistic doctor. In fact, we don't even know if he really is a doctor. I just made a refernce to one scenario, of someone being mentally challenged and not able to handle the situation like this conventionally. There are other situations: someone's wife in delivery room, someone's mother dying, promise to be there for kid's special event etc. any of which could cause a person to act irrationally.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Oh okay, that makes sense then. Too bad they didn't bloody him further!

still doesn't make what united did ok, but too many people seem to be painting this guy as an innocent saint.

nothing is ever totally black and white. maybe he didn't want to get off the plane because he was a selfish jerk trying to get to the casino. we don't know the truth to why he didn't feel like getting off the plane.

obviously the excuse of being a doctor who had patients to see didn't work.
regardless of what happened, I'm curious as to his thinking as to why he decided he didn't need to leave the plane.

did he think they'd just give up and move on? offer him more money? did he think there was no legal obligation to leave his seat? it's quite interesting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You are trying to divert attention from a real issue to a made-up issue using wisecracks. No, I don't think he's an autistic doctor. In fact, we don't even know if he really is a doctor. I just made a refernce to one scenario, of someone being mentally challenged and not able to handle the situation like this conventionally. There are other situations: someone's wife in delivery room, someone's mother dying, promise to be there for kid's special event etc. any of which could cause a person to act irrationally.

The real issue is I don't agree with how anyone in this situation acted. If we are making up scenarios, maybe he was a sex offender that had scheduled a meet up with an under aged girl in Louisville and didn't want to miss it.

Maybe I have missed it, but I don't believe that he has a condition/disorder that would have contributed to his response. All that I have seen/read is that he was a regular passenger like all the rest of us.

Again, and I want to be clear. I don't agree with United's handling of this matter, but neither do I agree with the passenger's handling of this matter.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Are you really taking this position??http://forumcdn.calgarypuck.com/imag...lies/blink.gif
United should have kept increasing the rewards until someone agreed. The business practice of reneging on a sale to give preferential treatment to your own employees is bad enough. Violently assaulting your customers because they disagree and elected to not take United's offer was even worse.

I'm taking this position.

The implication of your phrasing is that it was a Louisville based crew deadheading home. United would not bump boarded passengers to give "preferential treatment" to a flight crew... they were attempting to give priority to the hundreds of people who would be inconvenienced the next day versus the 4 people who would be bumped from this flight and sufficiently compensated according to the law.

A couple weeks ago a United plane broke here, and a guy was bumped from a Houston-Calgary flight so a mechanic could fly up and get that plane the hell out so hundreds of people would not have their plans screwed in the following days. Pretty much the exact same scenario. Alaska has bumped people plenty of times to fly techs up to Edmonton to fix planes. "Reneging on a sale to give preferential treatment to your own employees" happens all day long by everybody and we'd be pretty screwed without it.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

still doesn't make what united did ok, but too many people seem to be painting this guy as an innocent saint.

nothing is ever totally black and white. maybe he didn't want to get off the plane because he was a selfish jerk trying to get to the casino. we don't know the truth to why he didn't feel like getting off the plane.

obviously the excuse of being a doctor who had patients to see didn't work.
regardless of what happened, I'm curious as to his thinking as to why he decided he didn't need to leave the plane.

did he think they'd just give up and move on? offer him more money? did he think there was no legal obligation to leave his seat? it's quite interesting.

Yes this all could have been solved in a peaceful manner.

But then the security officer suddenly decided violence was the best course of action. The unneeded act of violence is what's causing this outrage.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

still doesn't make what united did ok, but too many people seem to be painting this guy as an innocent saint.

Uh, it doesn't matter if he kicks puppies in his spare time. It has no bearing on United's actions. Frankly, I don't even care that he was a doctor. His occupation is neither here nor there to me. It's far more to do with the extreme actions taken by United in this instance, against a human being. More and more comes to light regarding United, with this case, and none of it, yet, helps them in any way.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Yes this all could have been solved in a peaceful manner.

But then the security officer suddenly decided violence was the best course of action. The unneeded act of violence is what's causing this outrage.

you're right.
while I wonder at the thought process of the victim, I also wonder what the security people/airline people were thinking.

If they didn't want to sweeten the pot, or let the guy stay on, why didn't they just call the police?

[calgaryblood]

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

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.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The real issue is I don't agree with how anyone in this situation acted. If we are making up scenarios, maybe he was a sex offender that had scheduled a meet up with an under aged girl in Louisville and didn't want to miss it.

Maybe I have missed it, but I don't believe that he has a condition/disorder that would have contributed to his response. All that I have seen/read is that he was a regular passenger like all the rest like all the rest of us.

Again, and I want to be clear. I don't agree with United's handling of this matter, but neither do I agree with the passenger's handling of this matter.

United made a mistake seating everyone sure but when the rules came into play they did everything correctly. You got picked and asked by crew and then management to leave when that didn't happen you have to call security, not United Airlines security but airport security. Once they handed the job of removing the passenger to security they have no more control over it, I'm sure they would have much rather had the man give in and leave with security than what happened.

This could have been resolved by picking someone else but that is not how it works, I'm tired of the squeaky wheels bending rules because they make a scene and we see it everyday.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

United Airlines clarified Tuesday that the flight Sunday from which a man was dragged off, screaming, was not overbooked.

According to USA Today, United and its regional affiliate, Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, wanted to remove four passengers to accommodate crew members who needed to be in Louisville on Monday. United had initially said the flight was overbooked.

United’s chief executive, meanwhile, defended his employees, saying the passenger, who refused to give up his seat, was belligerent. The battered and bloodied man was dragged back to the terminal at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

One of the officers involved in the incident was placed on leave pending an investigation. But international outrage continued Tuesday, with United’s stock price falling, memes exploding and disturbing videos of the incident shared across the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c38d46f0501f

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Uh, it doesn't matter if he kicks puppies in his spare time. It has no bearing on United's actions. Frankly, I don't even care that he was a doctor. His occupation is neither here nor there to me. It's far more to do with the extreme actions taken by United in this instance, against a human being. More and more comes to light regarding United, with this case, and none of it, yet, helps them in any way.

Republic's only actions were requesting, within their legal right, that a passenger be bumped from the flight and rightfully compensated. I'm not condoning it, but this is not "extreme" and happens to 40,000 people a year without incident, so it wasn't an overly difficult decision to make. They did not anticipate the utter incompetence of airport security who should have immediately called the police once the guy said no, else you can be damn sure they would have just cancelled the entire sked for the flight crew the next day.

The act of bumping people sucks and it's scummy, but not "extreme"... and should certainly be disconnected from the subsequent act of non-United employees using physical force to remove the guy.

It's just wild that a decision made by a low-level underpaid Republic gate agent at ORD is costing United millions in stock a day later.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c38d46f0501f

Ha ha ha. United certainly isn't making things easy on themselves here. Lying about it being overbooked is a really bad look given what transpired.

[Minnie]

You're correct. I should have delineated that better, to reference security. I do not think though, that their (United) actions since, have been helping them any.

I read somewhere else though, that United bears a good deal of blame in the amount offered? That there is a bare minimum that must be offered and that $800 wasn't even close. Is there truth to that? I'm off to google but wondered if you had any knowledge of it.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Acey

It's just wild that a decision made by a low-level underpaid Republic gate agent at ORD is costing United millions in stock a day later.

I'd say the United CEO doubling down on the issue (reflecting United's official image and direct response) isn't just isolating it to just a low level peon.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

This could have been resolved by picking someone else but that is not how it works, I'm tired of the squeaky wheels bending rules because they make a scene and we see it everyday.

If they moved on to another random passenger, there would be a 100 doctors on the flight. Once he was selected, they had to stick to their guns.

United handled the situation wrong, but after that, I don't have issues with how airport security dealt with it. The passenger was breaking federal law and interfering with traffic control. Not to mention that airlines get increasing fines the longer they hold up traffic. The man had to go, albeit because United are a bunch of idiots, but if he wasn't cooperative, force was reasonable. You can't sit there saying pretty please until he agrees.

And yes, being someone (a married man with children) who trades narcotics for sex does make me less sympathetic. It doesn't make United look any better of course.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

United handled the overbooking situation wrong

According to a link posted above, the flight was not overbooked. It was apparently just the excuse used?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Minnie

According to a link posted above, the flight was not overbooked. It was apparently just the excuse used?

I look forward to the "clarification" tomorrow that the 4 United Airlines personnel that were to crew another flight were actually just friends and family of United Airlines employees instead.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Minnie

According to a link posted above, the flight was not overbooked. It was apparently just the excuse used?

Just a wording thing. They are considering bumps for flight crew different than bumping because you sold too many tickets, the idea being that the latter is not revenue driven.

Originally Posted by Minnie

You're correct. I should have delineated that better, to reference security. I do not think though, that their (United) actions since, have been helping them any.

I read somewhere else though, that United bears a good deal of blame in the amount offered? That there is a bare minimum that must be offered and that $800 wasn't even close. Is there truth to that? I'm off to google but wondered if you had any knowledge of it.

They claim that "over $1,000" was offered. It's supposed to be 4x the ticket ($1,350) for involuntary bumps... but it's a kind of scummy thing where you have to work them up to the amount you're actually entitled to, which you should never have to do.

Originally Posted by chemgear

I'd say the United CEO doubling down on the issue (reflecting United's official image and direct response) isn't just isolating it to just a low level peon.

I agree 100% that their handling of the fallout and statements made so far have been horrible... but there's pretty much nothing they could have said in this day and age that would stop the massive boulder from rolling once it got going on the internet. If they made a perfectly worded statement it's not like people would be putting it at the bottom of memes.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If they moved on to another random passenger, there would be a 100 doctors on the flight. Once he was selected, they had to stick to their guns.

United handled the situation wrong, but after that, I don't have issues with how airport security dealt with it. The passenger was breaking federal law and interfering with traffic control. Not to mention that airlines get increasing fines the longer they hold up traffic. The man had to go, albeit because United are a bunch of idiots, but if he wasn't cooperative, force was reasonable. You can't sit there saying pretty please until he agrees.

And yes, being someone (a married man with children) who trades narcotics for sex does make me less sympathetic. It doesn't make United look any better of course.

They really didn't have to stick to their guns. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

[ResAlien]

I too would like to repeatedly reference information regarding the unrelated history of a man who was assaulted that was neither known by the assailants nor has any relevance to the situation.

In hindsight though that son of a bitch had no business even being on an airplane. Thankfully there were heroes there who were able to exact some form of justice on this personification of humanity's ills. Suspended? Nay sir, I say these men should be promoted and have songs sung of their valour and courage in the face of such unabashed and unspeakable evil.