231–240 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why didn't they figure this out before boarding everyone? It's much easier to deny boarding than to pull someone off of a plane.
I don't know. Last minute logistical changes based on timetables, planes, weather, etc. The reason why I guessed this is because my brother is a pilot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch the video. The guy is big, but he's not acting like police, and he doesn't have any sort of uniform. The two useless cops are just looking on like useless cops do.
I watched the video. Sky marshals purposefully wear normal clothes, so they blend in with the rest of the passengers on the flight. Having them wear uniforms would kind of defeat the purpose. The cops are likely waiting until the passenger is off the plane to take him into custody.
Actually the real police might well have told United to increase the voucher amount like any civilized human organization would do. The gate agent then looked outside and picked out the biggest meanest baggage handler she saw. I really doubt the Sky Marshals want any part of this disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in your example, I can't run over the kid, but I can call the cops, and have them come and physically remove him. So that's almost exactly what happened, except that the burly guy wasn't a cop (or at least wasn't in uniform). The cops were there, though, and were (at least tacitly) authorizing the guy to try to physically remove the passenger. Is that legal and/or moral? Or does it have to be a uniformed office…
I thought they were both cops. Having a cop makes it legal, but the moral question is the one we are arguing. I think the cop has the responsibility to remove the kid without endangering the kid.
The depraved part here is that none of United's employees (flight attendants and/or pilots) on board the aircraft stopped law enforcement or whoever it was from forcibly ejecting this guy. The law may be on United's side but United's employees on board could have been more human about it and not let this happen once the passenger refused to be booted off the plane. Since when is use of force the norm?
As a result they got some great press on a weekend when they might have had horrible press: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to rationalize anyone's actions here, but if the captain told you to kill another passenger, that is not within his right of removal of choice for individual. i.e. The captain is only allowed to remove choice for an individual when the group is threatened, given they are in charge, by law, of making choices for group (perhaps for the reason of or related to in-flight matters). Edit: changed he to they.
That's actually not true (afaik). Certainly the command to kill another passenger is unlawful, and you won't carry it out. But also just as certainly he can tell you to leave the aircraft for refusing. There literally is absolutely no legal right for you to stay on that vessel after the captain requests you leave. Plenty of incidents support this on a practical level - captains remove people rarely but not unheard of…
What exactly did I say that wasn't true? If a captain removes people for discrimination, then they are removing choice from individual based on making choice for group. People don't want to hear a racist's rationalizations, so as a group decision it might be a good one, especially given it is related to in-flight matters (or the prediction it will be related to in-flight matters). Again, I state that the captain is only allowed (legally) to remove choice for individual when the group (all people in plane) are denied things related to in-flight matters.
Laws are typically rational.
I will note my response was directed to the claim that if they ask you to do something, you must do so. I'm stating that I do not believe, in all cases, the captain has the rational right, by law, to remove choice from an individual if they are not threatening choice for group. That's not to say the captain can't and won't do a removal, but it is irrational to remove choice from individual if they are not threatening group. That also implies it might not pass the muster of law, and a passenger would not be "guilty" of breaking a law by resisting removal. And besides, four people had to go, so the choice to remove that one individual's right to choice was removed by randomness or judgement, both of which are irrational actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The airlines have run the numbers, and it is clearly more profitable to sell (for example) 105% of the plane, and then if more than 100% show up, pay people off to take a different flight. I guess the op's question is, why was it not done here? (Sadly) Everyone has a price for everything. Obviously that guy's price was not met. As you say, the airline has done the math... does their math include the cost of draggin…
I imagine that the there was effectively a "CAN'T HAPPEN" comment on what to do when nobody bit at $800. I can imagine the people writing the policy imagining that their employees might collude with friends on board to pocket the money if they let the offer get too high.
Who's to say that this man's price was the lowest price? Turn it into a bidding process, the lowest 5 bids on the plane get paid, and the airline gets their seats.
The potential for misuse is not a good excuse for accepting negative actions.
Someone on a different message board put this situation very well: By the letter of the law, United was correct - morally, they were not. Their 'contract of carriage' allows them to IDB (Involuntary Deny Boarding) to passengers due to overselling, and bump people off at-will. Depending on how delayed the passenger would be to their final destination, they would owe compensation (up to a max of $1350) for the trouble.…
A couple of points: 1. You are correct that is what they CoC states, however its not like this is really a free market (ie. the customer didn't really have a choice but to accept those terms). United, and all commercial airlines, effectively have a monopoly license. So, it wasn't really a free and open market that produced those CoC terms. 2. As sign of the "bad faith" of United's contract, the reverse situation is n…
Today must be a fun day to be on United's PR team.