United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

Is it somehow controversial that selling more tickets for flights will tend to lower costs per ticket?

The particular incident isn't really a good one to base discussions on, it was so egregious that the discussions are boring. It shouldn't have happened.

There is a more interesting discussion to have about overbooking, whether to allow it and how to deal with the situation where they get it wrong and don't have enough seats. Maybe the minimum payout for denied boarding should be higher. Maybe the airline should have to start their offers for voluntarily taking a later flight at that price. Maybe the sale process for all tickets should include an option to actually reserve the seat (for a fee).

But there isn't a discussion to have about whether a business should call the police to beat up a customer that they just don't want to serve.

This is not a good take, and poorly written besides. I think it's apparent that the good pilot hasn't been a paying passenger in quite some time.

Nothing in this distinguishes the facts as we know them so far, and doesn't even mention the changes in legality incurred once a paying passenger sits in their purchased seat. For me, the contract of carriage is an important aspect of this story. Heck, I don't even think I've read anything that implicates the pilots on the Dao flight at all.

It reads more as submarine PR to take the heat off the airline and square it on the police, who essentially have zero oversight in Chicago, and which would put the matter into a territory of blamelessness. Further extrapolating, in the inevitable civil case(s), I wonder if the pilot's reasoning could work to reduce punitive damages.

As a pilot, the author should know that Dao was not interfering with a crew member, because the flight attendants did not become crew members in law until the door was closed (according to 49USC§46501) and/or the aircraft was moving under its own power (according to 14CFR§91). Yes, it's silly, and counterintuitive, and even contradictory. Welcome to law. This is the law that United's defenders keep trying to invoke, but they clearly do not know what the law actually says or means. It's an appeal to an authority that doesn't actually support them. In other words, it's BS.

The point about the deadheading crew is more interesting IMO. It's their arrival that triggered the whole thing. Why were they so late arriving? Did United's logistics screw up by not putting that crew on another flight, or did the crew themselves screw up by not showing up for it? United still hasn't clarified. It is perhaps worthy of note that the deadheaders were the only ones here who were United's responsibility; the rest (and worst) of what happened was on either Republic or Chicago aviation security. United might be faced with a choice between admitting their own direct responsibility for causing this mess vs. having to explain to AFA why they threw union members under the bus. Silence might seem preferable to either of those.

> I should also emphasize that the nationwide attention to this incident...came because of the actions of Chicago airport security...

> But this whole nightmare occurred because a "deadheading"...

> But let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Chicago airport security officers.

Way to scapegoat airport security, Les. Next time just blame the victim outright.

I'm sure Dao deserved it because he was perpetrating a sit-in protest without a permit on private property. Right?

Republic, acting with agency given by United.