I refuse to "voluntarily" give up a seat I have paid for, and am, in fact, occupying, and some

[niyad]

unidentified individual demands I give it up, and I am dragged out like some resistor in a third world dictatorship? WTF WTF WTF WTF

[greymattermom]

1. It's like dragging you out of your hotel room

in the middle of the night so someone else can have your bed.

[athena]

4. Exactly.

If we don't speak up now, it won't be long before dragging a guest out of a hotel room will become standard practice defended by sociopaths on DU who care more about the profits of large corporations than the rights of individual citizens.

[RKP5637]

15. I had this almost happen to me. I booked a hotel room for two weeks. I had been there about

a week and about 2 AM someone started banging on my door telling me to open the door immediately. I looked through the peep hole and there were two huge guys there all dressed in black. I was like WTF and scared. I called the desk, they told me I was in an unoccupied room and they had been sent to remove me from the hotel. I put my heavy corporate tone on the phone and told them the room was booked for two weeks.

Finally, a non-idiot came on the line and apologized. Somehow their books/computer was screwed up and showed the room was vacant. Apparently security does a scan of the building from outside at night and looks for lights on in rooms that are supposed to be vacant, but have lights on. Just another of my many WTF moments in life. BTW, this was in Canada.

I checked out in the morning and politely told them F you. They begged me to stay, as they had been having trouble renting rooms. I told them no wonder, get a clue and left.

A phone call to my room would have been nice before sending in guards all dressed in black in the middle of the night, FFS.

[annabanana]

23. "corporate tone" ?

Would that be his ability to string several grammatical sentences in a row in a compelling narrative?

[Iggo]

43. Makin friends, eh?

Welcome to DU.

[athena]

22. What a horrible experience!

And in Canada, too. Once again, a business doing something to protect its bottom line and trying to pass it off as something they're doing to "serve you better".

[TNNurse]

37. In my job as nursing supervisor, I learned a tone of voice that was pretty effective.

I am 5'2", wear glasses and have mostly white hair. I knew the tone and the words to say. I was particularly fond of "NO" without explanation or "It is my job to know the law about that". In case you are wondering, these were mostly used on visitors and doctors. My personal favorite when dealing with a man who wanted to see his newborn. He was not married to the mother and she did not want him to see the baby. I explained she would not allow it and there was nothing to be done. He said he would go get his friend "the judge". I said I would ask but I did not think she would let the judge see the baby either. Fortunately, since he was about 6'5", there were security guards standing around the corner in the hall. He finally gave up and left but I warned the next shift he might try again.

It is not my normal tone of voice.

[niyad]

55. I have been told that my "tone" and a certain expression I use, can scare the biggest bullies

around.

[pansypoo53219]

105. i never got bullied, or maybe i just stared at them when i was a kid. i had

uncles. and i am petty quiet + not mean. i guess i am not meek looking.

[niyad]

188. I am glad that you were never bullied.

[csziggy]

86. Oh, well - at least they didn't evict while you were out during the day

A little over a decade ago my husband and I planned a vacation visiting Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, just north of Cape Canaveral. We reserved a room for a week in Titusville at the Comfort Inn. Each morning we'd leave the room before dawn so we could get breakfast before the gates opened and we would stay at the refuge until dusk, stop for dinner and at Wal-Mart to burn our photos to CDRs so we could fill up the memory cards on our digital cameras again the next day. This worked great for the first two days.

The third evening we got back to the hotel about 9 PM, tired from a long day of birdwatching. Our key card wouldn't unlock the door - then from the inside a man opened the door to see what was happening. He and his companion had checked in around 6 PM and didn't know that the room had been ours.

We went down to the desk and they insisted that we had checked out that morning. After almost an hour they brought out all our luggage, into which they had thrown our stuff - though over $40 worth of food was missing. They insisted we had checked out despite the fact that we had a reservation for a week. They also insisted that they had no room available for us.

Meanwhile I was getting louder and louder. During the time we we in the lobby several family came to check in and I wished them luck with the motel honoring their reservations. Eventually the owner arrived and "found" us a room, giving us three nights free. By the time we got into the room it was nearly midnight.

Each morning after that we packed all our stuff in our car - didn't want to take a chance of anything going missing. When we did check out, they gave us the last part of the week free - I thought we'd been charged for the first few days but when my credit card bill arrived there was no charge at all. That really did not compensate us for the hassle and stress - and the lost day of enjoyment since we were so tired the rest of the week from worrying about losing our room.

When I complained to the Comfort Inn national offices, they told me the franchisers were not under their control and they could do nothing about their screw ups. Since I had made the reservation through AAA, I sent them my complaint and that Comfort Inn was removed from the AAA system.

I will NEVER stay at another Comfort Inn - or any of the other hotels/motels in that system. If they will not set standards for their franchises, what is the point of following their brand?

[RKP5637]

144. Wow, that is some story. One never knows what they're getting into. All it takes is the

incompetence of one clerk to start things rapidly downhill.

[LisaM]

128. I'm sorry this happened to you, but you made me laugh!

I checked out in the morning and politely told them F you. They begged me to stay, as they had been having trouble renting rooms.

I told them no wonder, get a clue and left.

[kcr]

186. They'll claim you deserved it because you didn't read the fine print on your receipt

You deserve to be out on your ass in the middle of the night in your PJs surrounded by all your things thrown on the grounds, beaten to a bloody pulp for being childish! Rules are rules. Corporations are allowed to have 'em! I can see the posts right now. What do you expect the cops to dooooooooo?

[Moostache]

9. Small distinction...

In that analogy, being pulled from the seat is not quite the same as being pulled from the bed...unless they decide to start fitting passengers with parachutes and throw them off the planes to save fuel...

[niyad]

13. a most excellent point and comparison.

[RKP5637]

18. See #15. n/t

[niyad]

27. I just read that--how utterly horrifying. the very least they should have comped your room.

[leftieNanner]

26. Not just so someone else can have your bed -

but so a hotel employee can have your bed. The flight was full, but United had to get four crew members on the plane.

My daughter used to compete in Odyssey of the Mind back in middle school. Her team won the regional competition, and then the state competition. They were flying to Ames, Iowa for the World Tournament, and half the team was bumped off the flight because it was over booked. They flew them to Kentucky and told them to just figure it out. They had to rent a van and drive all night to get to the venue. Needless to say, they didn't do very well. UNITED AIRLINES SUCKS! Always will. Oh, and they didn't compensate the kids and the parents for the hassle.

[erronis]

61. Thanks, another down-vote for United and MBAs that don't know customer relations

I certainly hope that each of this Odyssey of the Mind (which I support, and which is will supply many of the forward thinkers for this country/world) partcipants, will remember this episode.

I hope they remember that a particular company was emblematic of poor service; that this company was led by entrepeneurs that didn't give a shit about customers; and than that there are good companies that do try.

Make sure that the few good companies aren't raped by CEOs and their friends and that the board-of-directors actually care about the mission of the company - not just the share price, not just their friends on yachts and golf courses.

[leftieNanner]

189. I don't hold out much hope

that United will change their stripes. They have almost a monopoly on air travel, especially in certain markets. If this event has an impact on their bookings and customer loyalty (not to mention the enormous law suit that the assaulted passenger will file), something may change. Fly the Friendly Skies, my ass.

OM was a huge part of my daughter's youth. She loved it. Now she's getting a PhD in Physical Chemistry at MIT. You never know where the open minds can lead.

[erronis]

190. Congrats to your daughter and to you! Let's hope her bright mind can lead us out of the dystopia

Of trump and his denialist supporters.

[leftieNanner]

191. Thanks!

And she's a devoted and active Democrat! Her mamma done raised her right! She was selected to participate in a conference a few weeks ago in Washington DC to learn about lobbying Congress for Science.

[TNLib]

80. I think it will get to the point that they won't even offer vouchers

They'll just tell you to get off the plane or face a beat down.

What's just as disturbing is when people defend the corporations that are literally acting like thugs. Pretty soon there will be no such thing as consumer protections.

[msongs]

2. yes but if a business is too stupid to plan how to use its employee force u should suffer nt

[Volaris]

79. THIS. If United can't figure out how to get its flights staffed efficiently,

What the hell no marketing dept on God's Green Earth is gonna get me to board that plane, because that's MARKETING and running the flight MAINTENENCE dept is way more important and likely just as mismanaged.

[question everything]

3. Somone had an interesting commentary on MSNBC earlier

and it included the question of why even let everyone board if they knew they overbooked.

Travelers already checked in, they knew that had to fly a crew so why wait? Why not try to offer rewards while everyone still at the gate? And why not offer $11,000?

[Staph]

81. I used to fly for work, multiple times per month, mostly Delta.

When Delta was in an "overbooked situation", long before boarding they would start offering money to passengers willing to take a later flight. If they did not get enough volunteers, the last passengers to board would become the involuntary volunteers. They got the money or other incentives already offered.

It isn't the nicest situation, but no one ever got dragged off a plane in the decades that I was a frequent flyer.

[Ilsa]

106. The gate crew or the travelling crew screwed up. They showed up late

or called in for the ride late after everyone boarded. The top amount offered by UAL was insufficient to interest anyone. Management needs to increase the limit for motivating a taker of a buyout.

They were wrong to remove a seated passenger involuntarily. Only volunteers at that point leave the plane unless they are sick, a danger to anyone, or interfering in the performance of the flight crew. See my post below, number 56.

[burnbaby]

5. my take

If a duly sworn police officer give you instructions, listen to them. You may be 100% in the right, they may be 100% in the wrong but let the courts figure it out

Now as far as United, in my humble opinion they were WRONG! If they are going to bump someone do it before anyone is allowed to board the plane.

[Hekate]

8. Turns out they were not sworn officers of the law, but hired thugs. I mean "security." nt

[Lee-Lee]

30. No, I just looked it up and they are sworn officers

Chicago Department of Aviation Security officers are fully sworn law enforcement officers who undergo the same training as any other officer in the state and have full powers of arrest. But they don't carry firearms, an odd way to run an agency in light of security concerns.

[hamsterjill]

33. If they were any good at their job, they could have removed the man without splitting his lip.

Even if he was resisting. Just sayin'. I grew up around a bunch of police officers, and the good ones know how to do their job without hurting people. It's the ones on the power trip that are involved in the types of situation such as the United flight situation.

My guess is that the man's injury is going to become more inflammatory than his actual bump from his seat.

[Lee-Lee]

39. Maybe so

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback what someone should have done, especially in cases of use of force.

He clearly was not compliant and was resisting the officers, and in those circumstances especially in such tight quarters injuries are likely. We don't even know what bloodied his lip or nose during the scuffle or how the injury happened. It could have been a blow from one of them, it just as easily could have. Been his head hitting a seat as he pulled against them.

I wish we had a long video of everything leading up to the use of force moment to see how long they talked to him, starting with the flight crew, and his reactions. It's hard to put it all in context from short clips.

[hamsterjill]

41. You are correct.

I want to know why he was so adamant that he would not leave. I know there is some information floating around, but to my knowledge, he has not given a statement so his motivation for refusing to leave isn't known.

[Lee-Lee]

49. I'm judging from my limited bit of seeing him

But his tone and demeanor struck me as a person who has difficulty with anger management issues and coping with situations like this.

I saw that a lot as a deputy. People would escalate what was a minor situation be getting enraged way beyond what was called for and end up turning what was a minor issue into an arrest or worse.

I once had to arrest someone because she went to buy cigarettes and the store wouldn't sell them to her without ID. She started pitching a fit, screaming and refused to leave the store. We got called, I showed up, told her to leave and she refused. That was already criminal trespass at that point but I decided that try and get her out and called down instead of arresting her. I try to guide her out the door with a hand in the shoulder and she punches at me.

So she turned just not being able to buy her smokes into an arrest for disorderly conduct, criminal trespass and assault on a police officer.

My guy gives me the same vibe here, but it's just gut feeling based in the limited info we have at this point.

[ProfessorPlum]

57. just stop

the man's qualities, identity, past, height, weight, body odor, and emotional qualities matter not one bit.

[Lee-Lee]

65. You are right in almost all of that

Non of that matters, nor did a bring it up, aside from his emotional qualities at the time of the incident.

That surely impacted his actions and responses there, and that is relevant.

[Hekate]

111. Eff that. By the time TSA was halfway thru with me I was sobbing and I. Don't. Cry. In. Public.

They had me standing with my arms straight out and were asking questions to which they already had the answers. With snot running down my nose they offered me kleenex. Every time I tried to move in the slightest I was told to stay put and keep my arms out. The one woman kept asking me why I was upset. I cried harder, because the truth was that if I had told her my true feelings they probably would have hauled me off for real.

There's more, but I'll spare you.

My mother was dying. It was an emergency trip, one way. One-way ticket from California to Utah looked soooooo suspicious.

I was maintaining until TSA got hold of me.

How do you think my emotional qualities looked to them by the time the tears started?

[suffragette]

139. Hekate, I'm sorry you had to endure that ordeal.

[Hekate]

173. Thank you for your kindness

thank you. Other people had it so much worse. Other people are being terrorized daily by TSA.

This was during the BushCheney years. They instituted a system of legalized bullying, thuggery, and forced compliance onto a fearful population, and made sure that people understood the law could make them suffer for resistance. It was and is theater of a most vicious kind. Personally, I think they were just practicing on me -- Oh look, this middle aged white lady has a one way ticket, and it's a slow day in Utah, let's give her the full treatment. It could have been anybody.

It was grief that had me on edge, but it was rage against BushCheney that made me break like that, and even then, it took a long time. Absolute rage. When that woman kept stupidly asking me what was wrong and why was I crying, I wanted to scream that they were fucking fascists abusing the public trust. And I knew better than to do any such thing. Hold your arms out. I didn't say you could move. Tell me your home address again. What's this in your luggage? Hey, don't move. What is this book? What is this object?

All these brave DUers proclaiming they will never leave their seats on demand, or conversely, that it's the beaten victim's fault for not complying immediately with a completely unreasonable order -- I wonder what they really will do when it's their turn.

Today? I go into airports and just shut down as far as I can. Survivors of abuse have a psychological state we call "out of body" -- that's the state I invoke, insofar as possible. Remove shoes, use 3 trays for personal possessions. Walk through the X-ray machine. Submit to physical molestation. Try not to think what my country has done to itself in the name of an illusory "safety."

[suffragette]

174. The acceptance of this degradation and even brutality is disgusting.

Completely agree about the so called security of it being theater, purposefully done to force compliance. Been saying that on DU and IRL for ages, now.

And it's in marked contrast to measures being defunded that actually make us more secure. Just read about early warning for earthquakes that might be defunded under Trump. That's a system that could save many lives. The article gave great examples, like a water system shutting valves and a surgeon putting the scalpel down in the minutes before the earthquake started shaking.

In your situation, you clearly and concisely described just how a person can be pushed over the edge by the combination of TSA's callous actions and badgering. The repeated "why are you crying?" to imply blame on you for your reaction when their actions had caused that, as if your response was somehow not 'normal' when it's their pushing and pushing and pushing some more that is not.

There's now video from the moments before Dr. Dao was physically pulled out of his seat with so much force that he slammed into the seat on the other side. In this video, he is explaining that he had already been on a long flight from L.A. and was worried about an even longer delay if he has to leave this plane. That's all a completely rational and understandable concern, and he's explaining it calmly after what was clearly a long and trying travel day.

Yet some here automatically come done on the side of the authority, no matter how abusive that authority was or how many other better options (and there were quite a few) the authority had not taken that would have been better for all.

https://m.

[duncang]

175. I am really glad to see this video.

This is what the United ceo called belligerent. That was not a belligerent man or some kind of mad man as expressed by some. I don't know if this has been posted in a separate thread But seems to me like it should.

[suffragette]

176. I don't know if this new video is posted elsewhere. Maybe I should post it in a new thread.

I've noticed some other info from passengers that should probably be highlighted as well, especially that United started trying to get volunteers before boarding, but boarded anyway.

[NewRedDawn]

90. Fucking corporate apologists

is sickening on a progressive board!

[ProfessorPlum]

94. I know, right?

Blaming the victim is a favorite pastime, apparently

[A-Schwarzenegger]

108. Yep.

I keep waiting for a suggestion that he ought to pay for damaging the armrest with his face.

[Hekate]

179. Yeah, those bloodstains are hard to get out

[JTFrog]

91. Thin blue line.

End of.

[.99center]

134. Guide her out the door with a hand on the shoulder?

Sounds like she attempted to guide your head in the other direction when you grabbed her by the shoulder.

[HoneyBadger]

85. He is being destroyed in the UK media

Probably will take a couple of days to reach US news, but the summary is not a doctor that you want within a hundred miles of you. United is going to destroy his career for sure, and probably his personal life.

[EX500rider]

97. I wouldn't want him as a doctor after seeing how he behaved....

....if I was told by the plane crew and then the police I had to get off the plane, I sure wouldn't act like a 4 year old having a tantrum like he did.
Refusing to cooperate with the police usually doesn't end well.

[Hekate]

133. A tantrum? You have no idea what happened before the cameras started recording.

[EX500rider]

136. When adults have a problem with the airlines, they try and straighten it out, not flail and scream.

ymmd

[Hekate]

142. Riiiiiight

[.99center]

137. You don't even know what type of condition his patients were in.

You think it's possible that he felt that it was a matter of life or death for one or more of his patients? You'd be nuts to turn away a Dr that will fight the TSA to get back home to treat ya.

[PotatoChip]

88. This video gives a good explanation of what happened.

Apparently, United had 4 employees who needed that flight to get to a connecting flight. But since the flight was already fully booked (and passengers already seated), they asked if 4 people would VOLUNTARILY give up their seats. No one raised their hand, so United offered $400 then $800 but nobody was moving. So instead of raising the offer as they should have done, they decided to pick 4 random people. That man was one of them.

She begins the explanation of what happened along w/the video at the 1:45 mark.

[spiderpig]

114. Connecting flight to where?

They're in O'Hare, and the only connecting flight to their destination is off that flight to Louisville?

[PotatoChip]

115. They didn't say. (nt)

[Stonepounder]

116. I used to have a job that required a LOT of flying.

I taught computer classes to business with new computers. The classes were almost always at the client site and those sites ranged from (rarely) close enough to commute to places like Amsterdam and Tokyo, as well as all over the US and Canada. These companies paid a chunk of change for the class plus my expenses. I was usually booked 6-8 weeks in advance. So, when I got on a plane I needed to get to where I was going. If I missed my flight out or Fresno, CA on Sunday, there was no way I was going to be where I needed to be Monday morning and no way to contact the client. Getting 'bumped' was not an option and I too would have resisted being bumped.

If it was the homeward flight and the offered compensation got up to $1000 (which happened occasionally) then I would volunteer to be bumped because I knew I would use the voucher. I still have my American Airlines frequent flier card embossed with "2 Million Mile flier". I never saw someone 'involuntarily' bumped from a flight.

[spooky3]

159. Every article I've read described his reason.

I don't know why you aren't reading the same thing. He said he was a doctor who had to see patients the next morning.

[hamsterjill]

164. I was remarking that I'd not seen a statement from the passenger himself.

I don't know why you didn't read my post.

[spooky3]

166. It was from the passenger himself. You're not getting it.

[hamsterjill]

170. Since you're so much more savvy than me -

Please provide a link to where the passenger himself has discussed the situation. Honestly, I've not seen anything directly from him.

Thanks for enlightening me.

[OrwellwasRight]

60. Cops learn how to use holds and compliance techniques

to get people to move WITHOUT using brute force. No such holds were tried here, just brutality. The cops should never have been called in. United should have just kept upping its offers. But that is no excuse for violence.

[Lee-Lee]

64. I agree in part

You are entirely correct that they never should have been called and United should have kept offering more money until someone offered that last seat up.

We don't, however, know what they tried before the cottage starts. And I can tell you as person who has had such training that getting a non compliant resisting person moving from a position in such tight quarters and limited mobility as an airline cabin is orders of magnitude harder than doing it in a gym in a training class, and even in optimal conditions a combative or resisting person makes it far harder to do in reality than it is to type out on a keyboard.

[OrwellwasRight]

66. To build on your point,

If they could not get him out without resorting to brutality due to the extremely tight space available in coach class airline seats, then they have to ask themselves, is the non-compliance here such that brutality is warranted? Didn't they just go to the next step to prove that they were cops and not to be resisted? Should there not have been a discussion about the pros and the cons of using brute force to drag him from his seat in front of witnesses with cell phones? Wouldn't another choice had been made if cooler heads instead of power struggles prevailed?

[Lee-Lee]

75. Possibly

If it was me I certainly would have gone back to the management at United and asked if this is really what they wanted.

Maybe they did here, I don't know.

[niyad]

10. welcome to du. the question of the "duly sworn officer" brings up the question: if there

as an actual, legal, duly-sworn leo there, WHY was that person there? is that how airlines deal with passengers?

and, again, the whole story stinks from one end to the other.

[christx30]

103. Pretty much, yes.

If someone is being what the airlines deem unruly and refuses to leave the plane, they call the police as a matter of course. It's really not a bad idea, if you think about it. If you rely on flight attendants to remove people, no one's going to leave. That plane just sits there for an hour, and the other passengers miss their connecting flights, more chaos gets entered into the system that doesn't need to be there. And if that person gets violent, is anyone on board equipped to deal with it and protect the other passengers and the flight crew? So they call the cops. You don't know who's going to be violent and who's just stubborn.

[Lee-Lee]

20. Pretty much this. Cops were put in a no-win situation

The cops there were in a no-win situation. Legally the airplane is private property and they can ask anyone to leave it, refusal to is trespassing after that point.

It is even more so under the terms you agree to when buying a ticket.

So while United was totally assholes about it and managed it all wrong, they had the legal right to ask anyone they wanted to leave the plane.

So the cops were called, and by then the back story doesn't matter. If the property owner wants someone removed they have to remove them. If the person refuses at that point they have to take steps to remove the person. If the person refuses to follow lawful orders that escalates the scene. They can't just say "well, he doesn't want to go" and leave if he refuses.

United totally screwed the pooch. He made things worse by refusing to leave his seat when it got the the point that law enforcement was called. He should have at that point documented it, left and filed a civil case for his damages later.

[burnbaby]

24. agree

He should have left, documented it and then talked to a lawyer about damages. You would think a man of his credentials would do that rather than take a beating.

[athena]

28. I can't believe you're justifying physical assault.

That is sickening. "He made things worse"? Seriously?

The cops were not in a "no-win" situation. No one is forced to physically assault anyone who is not a posing a direct physical threat. Cops are supposed to be trained to be able to reason with people without using physical force.

I hope for your sake that you're never in a situation where you feel you're being treated unfairly by the management of a private establishment or by cops. If simply refusing to leave justifies physical assault, ... I don't know what to say. Welcome to ignore.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Failure to follow lawful orders

He was getting screwed by the airline, for sure.

I'm sure he was mad. I would be.

That doesn't change the fact that if a uniformed LEO comes and tells you that you need to leave the plane, you need to leave the plane. If you refuse that not only escalates it by you committing a crime, but it means they will probably remove you.

The use of force continuum is generally like this:

Soft voice, talk in normal tones
Firm voice, loud with authority
Soft hands, guiding the persons movement
Firm hand, moving the person

From all appearance he was mad, agitated and resisting attempts to peacefully remove him from the plane- leading them to that "firm hands" point.

If you are in a hotel room and the hotel owner says you must leave and they will refund your money, you have to leave. If you don't and they call the cops the cops are legally obligated to remove you from the premises. If you resist you may get injured. Now if you feel you were kicked out wrongly you can and should file a civil suit for damages, but that doesn't allow you to refuse to leave the premises at that time.

Same principals at play.

[Horse with no Name]

67. Lawful "orders"

No. This man bought and paid for a ticket which he was issued. He was issued permission to be on that plane via a Boardig Pass. He was sitting in his seat that he paid for so he could get to his destination to fulfill whatever obligations had when he arrived to his destination.
In the same situation, I would have said fuck you to their "volunteering" me to leave the plane.

[malaise]

74. Precisely

ALl the rights cannot belong to the corporation. Sorry folks

[EX500rider]

100. Might want to read all the small print on your ticket.

[OrwellwasRight]

153. implicitly agreed not explicitly.

Look up the definitions.

Also, just because a decision can be made does not mean a decision should be made. United made a stupid decision and was well within its rights to be so stupid.

The better decision would have been to:

Not load the plane until it had worked this out; or
keep offering higher cash compensation until it had volunteers.

It chose neither. Instead, it tried to take seats away from poeple who already had filled them. Of course it would have to pay more than normal to get those seats. This is called the status quo effect. Once you are in the seat, it is more valuable to you than the hypothetical seat you ate not in yet. Nut United chose to be cheap because it legally could . Now it looks vicious and foolish and all it has going for it is your not very convincing defense that it was only exercising its rights.

[OrwellwasRight]

168. I said it was a contract of adhesion.

Contract= agreement. Adhesion= forced. Therefore, while there was an agreement because the contract was made (money was exchanged for a ticket), there was no meeting of the minds. The entire flying public takes the terms because the other choice is not to not to fly. Your point that it is "still an agreement" is off point. My point was what kind of agreement it was. If you want to try to argue that it was contract that represented fair bargaining among parties that each had a chance to craft the terms, I think you'll find you are on the losing side of that argument. "It was still an agreement," is about the rhetorical equivalent of "so there."

Your other points are equally spurious:

1) I said United should have offered more to get VOLUNTEERS to get off the plane. You mention the federal law covering required compensation for INVOLUNTARY denial. So your evidence is spurious. Voluntary is not the same as involuntary. In fact, it is the opposite. What the rules are regarding involuntary denial do not have anything whatsoever to do with what United may or may not offer to people to get them to willingly give up their seat. If United offered $1350 and no one took it, they could certainly offer $1500 or $2000 or whatever. And yes, my argument is that they should have. That is certainly better than calling the policy forcibly remove people from the plane by battering them.

2) The federal law that requires compensation of $1350 for involuntary denial is a minimum requirement that people are entitled to -- it is completely specious to assert that paying more than the law requires would be "defying" DOT in anyway. There is no law against giving money away to make people happy or cooperative and to state that there is makes no common sense and has no basis in law.

3) I have repeated multiple times that United had a right to do what it did. I never disagreed on this point. I also said it was a stupid decision. Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do a thing. This applies to the United situation as well as to life more generally. Your rebuttal does not disprove that in any way.

If you're tempted at this point to post some additional spurious comments that don't rebut my points, you can spare yourself the effort, since they won't be any more convincing the next time you post them.

[whopis01]

165. It is explicit, actually

Implicit implies something was not directly stated. In this case, it is directly stated and thus is explicit.

You can argue all day long about how things should be different and you won't get any push back from me. But it is important to recognize that this is the current state of affairs and until the laws/regulations/agreements get changed nothing else is going to matter.

[OrwellwasRight]

167. No, when one side puts fine print on a contract

and does not explicitly mention its terms or bargain them with you or allow the terms to be changed, the agreement is implicit. No one is asked if they agree with the contract of carriage, nor do you even have anything as they do with a software agreement where they have a pop up box to alert you to the terms before you can actually purchase the ticket.

You can argue all day long that contracts of adhesion are explicit. They are not.

[whopis01]

171. You are confusing terms

An explicit contract is one where the terms of the contract are stated. It doesn't matter how fine the print is, if it is written down then it is an explicit contract.

You are going back and forth between arguing that the contract is implicit and that the agreement to the contract is implicit. Those are two very different concepts. The contract is an explicit contract if the terms are written down.

You could argue that the agreement to a contract of adhesion is implicit, not explicit. It doesn't make much difference as it is a legally enforceable contract either way.

[OrwellwasRight]

178. I am not the one that is confused.

If I don't see, read, or understand the terms until I arrive at the airport and you print them on the back of the ticket, I have only implicitly agreed. You may say that you printed the terms explicitly in 8 pt type on the ticket, but my agreement to those terms was implicit, in that I paid you. giving you the right to impose your terms on me. It was not explicit in that we had any discussion of the terms, what they meant, or that I had any choice in agreeing to them or not.

Here is an example of explicit agreement:

I want to buy this dress, but it is missing a button. Will you repair it for me?

No. You buy it as is. If you buy it, I have no responsibility to fix the button or anything else for that matter. Do you still want it?

Yes.

In that situation my agreement to buy your product on terms you dictated what explicit.

[FBaggins]

180. Not quite true

If you say when purchasing the ticket that you've read the contract... it's as explicit as it needs to be.

And you had to check such a box when you bought the ticket... now didn't you? "Didn't see/read/understand" is on you at that point.

[OrwellwasRight]

183. As explicit as what needs to be?

What do you mean by "how explicit it needs to be". Needs to be for what? What meaning are you implying into my post?

[FBaggins]

184. I'll rephrase

You make a good point that a contract that isn't the result of some dialog on what the transaction will be has a weakness (thought that isn't an absolute defense)... but my point is that none of that is relevant in the case of buying an airline ticket - because you said that you read it before they sold you the ticket. The fact that you were almost certainly lying doesn't change the fact that you agreed prior to booking that you read the contract.

[Flaleftist]

78. It may have been legal, but it was wrong.

Sometimes the only way to bring attention to these issues is to resist.

[d_r]

117. I'm sorry

but I didn't see any of that "firm voice, soft hands" stuff happen on that video.

And, no, if you have guaranteed a reservation at a hotel and then then they do not have a room when you arrive, they have to offer you a similar accommodation, even if it is paying for a room in another hotel.

[Lee-Lee]

119. A lot probably happened we didn't see in that video

Most of these videos end up like that, with people not starting filming during all the time prior to the "action" or editing out what they think is boring before posting it.

[athena]

59. The passenger should be reasoned with, and if he won't leave, he should be left alone.

There is no justification for physically assaulting someone who is not posing an immediate physical threat to anyone. What if the person ends up with permanent injuries, or even dies? This poor gentleman might have died as a result of hitting his head on the seat. How can you justify potentially killing someone who is not a physical threat?

The most disturbing thing about your question is that it assumes the passenger had to be taken off the plane. The passenger was not posing a threat to anyone. If United had offered increasingly large amounts of cash, four people would have been found who would voluntarily give up their seats. If offering $10,000 per person in cold, hard cash with no strings attached and to be handed over immediately did not result in four people releasing their seats, United could have hired a limousine or chartered a plane to get the four crew members to where they needed to be.

Indeed, there is no reason to stop at $10,000. United could have offered $100,000. At some point, the amount offered would have become so large that United would end up losing money on that flight, which would provide an incentive for them to review their methods and stop overbooking so aggressively.

So your question is misplaced. What you should really be asking is whether civil rights activists staging a sit-in should be physically assaulted. Why don't you ponder that for a moment. Perhaps then you will realize why some of us are so disturbed by this incident.

[OrwellwasRight]

62. Well argued.

In this country however, history shows that property rights are protected more vigilantly than all other rights. And that is what happened here: the cops were called to protect the property of United, not the civil rights of the paying customer.

[athena]

72. Excellent point.

I don't know any history, but we think alike. Take a look at this post of mine:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8918339

[OrwellwasRight]

154. exactly!

The police protected the property of the store owners, not your freedom of movement of freedom to create art, or anything else.

It's also why sentences for property crimes (like theft) can end up far longer than crimes against persons (like rape).

If we had a constitutional principal that people were more important than property, and forced our approach to criminal law to fit within this frame, our society would be very different.

[OrwellwasRight]

150. wow way to make assumptions

His rights were violated when he was battered. I never said otherwise. That proves my point. The cops were protecting United's PROPERTY, not the customer. Is that clear enough for you?

I never argued that United's contract (of Adhesion, by the way) doesn't say that. Nor did I argue that FAA rules don't require that all passengers follow all instructions of flight crew. They most certainly do. This guy was not compliant with those instructions. Legally, United had every right to throw him off because the laws are designed to protect United, not the customer who paid for the seat. The cops protected United's property interest more than they protected anything else.

I said our laws protect property far more stringently than they any other right, whether that be bodily integrity, civil liberties, what have you. You have not disproved this. You have reaffirmed it.

Is that clear enough for you?

[OrwellwasRight]

169. Not odd at all. Just following your lead.

The post you responded to read thusly, in its entirety:

"In this country however, history shows that property rights are protected more vigilantly than all other rights. And that is what happened here: the cops were called to protect the property of United, not the civil rights of the paying customer."

You responded by posting, speciously, material on the contract that is formed when a passenger buys a ticket from an airline in the U.S. A recitation of contract law has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my point about the history of the legal system in the U.S. and how it prefers property to people.

So, in fact, you did not make "another good point." You posted an irrelevancy designed to change the subject. So why should my post back to you attempt to rebut your post? My post was all about how your post IRRELEVANT and did not undermine my point. I was changing the subject back.

My response to you was to you get to understand my point so that you would stop posting specious and irrelevant responses. Do you now understand why I didn't need to rebut you? You don't have to rebut something that is not on point. I hope this is finally clear.

And please stop calling me a liar. If you want to call names, go use Discussionist or FreeRepublic.

(Free advice: And if you think it is a lie that the US laws protect property more stringently than any other right, you might want to post some evidence, rather than just call me a liar.)

[OrwellwasRight]

177. Hahahahahaha

Still no evidence to support your claim that I am a liar, huh? Keep it up. I'm sure it is winning over tons of supporters.

I have accused you of changing the subject because you have never rebutted my initial claim that US law protects property far more than people. First, you post a bunch of irrelevant information about the terms of the contract between airlines and their customers, which does not disprove my claim. Then you call me a liar, which is an ineffective debating technique. Then you call the claim that your evidence is irrelevant "silly." You have convinced no one. And you are still using ineffective debate technique.

The fact that you think you can build an effective argument by changing the subject is hilarious to me. And it's not my fault if you fail to understand the tools of rhetoric or my vocabulary. That's what the internet is for.

[OrwellwasRight]

182. Seriosuly?

Last edited Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Wow. Unless you went back and re-edited every prior post, you have never previously mentioned "grandstanding." What you did do is say that I lied. Those are very, very different things, and I am sorry you don't know the difference.

Other than your complete and obvious rudeness, the main thing wrong with your post is that it completely misrepresents the entire conversation we had, which was as follows.

Post #62: I said US law protects property over people.

Post #89:
You said you had a good point to make, which is that the contract of carriage between Untied allows it to kick people off the plane at will.

Post #150: I re-explained my post so that you would understand that it had nothing to do with what you posted, and that you have not "gotcha"ed me in any way.

Post #155: You, without any sense of irony, said my post had nothing to do with your post--which was my point! You also called me a liar.

Post #169: I explained why my post was not about debunking your post because you never debunked my original post. And I asked you to stop calling me a liar.

Post #172: You defend your right to call me a liar, though you can't seem to muster any data about what I am lying about. You also challenge my use of vocabulary.

Post #177: I explain, again, how your responses continue to be irrelevant to my original post about US law. I explain that ad hominem is not an effective debate technique.

Post #181: You call me a liar again (about what I still don't know), you double down on ad hominem, and you add in some new stuff about how this was all about "grandstanding."

That about sums it up. And I'm the one who is tiresome?

[athena]

84. This thread should answer your question.

There is even a video demonstration in one of the responses.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028918567

The example of a person sitting in a restaurant is very different from what happened here. Here, a person paid money in exchange for a promise to be transported from point A to point B by a certain time barring unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances like hazardous weather conditions. United, in other words, took money from him in return for the promise of service. United's own logistical problems in getting its crew to its destination should not be a legally valid excuse for United to deny the service it promised to provide.

As for what you do with someone who refuses to leave a restaurant or an airplane after having been provided the service they paid for, see the thread I referred to above.

Although you claim that you are not condoning physical violence, you keep asking for alternatives, as if you cannot think of any, and you refuse to accept the alternatives offered. That gets awfully close to attempting to justify physical violence as a way of dealing with someone who is not an immediate physical threat.

[womanofthehills]

140. And why would an airline pick a senior citizen rather than a younger person

Young people can go with the flow, but it's harder for older people. Just getting on and off the plane can be harder for someone just about 70 yrs old. Why was he picked is the big question.

[JTFrog]

92. Cops defend cops.

If we've learned nothing else in the past few decades....

[The Big Ragu]

148. "Cops are supposed to be trained to be able to reason with people without using physical force."

No, they are actually not.

Cops are not therapists or counselors.

They are trained to force you to comply with voice commands first, if that doesn't work, then will get you to comply physically.

And you will comply.

I don't agree with it, it sucks, it isn't fair, but such is the way of the world in a police state.

[pnwmom]

126. Except United didn't have the legal right to ask anyone to leave the plane.

Legally they were required to abide by the terms of their contract, and the contract required them to give transport to the paying customer.

If the flight was oversold, the contract allowed them to deny boarding to the passenger -- but they allowed him to board.
The contract also spelled out specific, limited reasons for removal of a seated passenger -- and he didn't violate them. (Getting "belligerent" because he didn't want to carry out their unlawful order isn't an allowable reason.)

But you are right that the cops weren't in the position to adjudicate this.

[Lee-Lee]

130. And the place to adjudicate it was in civil court later

[kcr]

187. That gave them the right to beat him to a bloody pulp?

No. It didn't.

Your posts stating your position on this are unbelievable.

[spooky3]

160. Are you an attorney?

[calimary]

71. Welcome to DU, burnbaby!

Of course one should comply with a duly-sworn police officer. But these weren't duly-sworn police officers. They were airline security. They WAY over-reacted. Maybe he did, too, but for Pete's sake - rough him up like that? It's not like he was a suspected terrorist, forcryingoutloud. He PAID for his seat!

It's just astounding to me - the pennywise/pound-foolish attitude of these corporations. They refused to offer more than $800 in compensation? Well, that's not much to compensate for all that extra inconvenience, missing your flight, having to stay over an extra day, what kinds of appointments and obligations and job-demands or family-needs were waiting for you at your destination, that you had to skip? Why didn't the airline go to $1000 or more? I bet if they offered $1500 + overnight room, or maybe $2000 + room, they'd have had 30 people volunteer to give up their seats.

Instead, they stayed cheap, and resorted to force, and look at the mess they're in now! The PR nightmare will cost them hard dollars for YEARS. That video clip will be there FOREVER. And every time United Airlines has another problem, that clip WILL be played. Again and again. MSNBC just ran through a LIST of offenses that's marred the company's track record of late - like that leggings snafu, for example. Oh yeah, THAT'S gonna win them more customers...

I'd love to corner the CEO or other officials near the top of the United corporate food chain, and ask: "Just how much DID you save by trying to go cheap upfront on the compensation offer to the passengers? Please tell me, how much DID you wind up saving the company by taking that approach?"

I have a friend who has to fly for her job all the time. Every week. She's complained about United several times - unrelated to any of this. But THIS - OY! They've lost her as a customer, for sure. And you certainly won't find me flying United anytime soon, either.

[burnbaby]

95. I love jet blue

I only fly where they are going

[bench scientist]

162. Except courts have figured this out.

Citizens are NOT compelled to obey NON-LAWFUL (100% wrong ) orders.
We have rule of law in this country and it applies to cops as well.
You are arguing for textbook authoritarianism.

[sheshe2]

6. K&R

[Docreed2003]

7. Just be prepared...

For them to victim blame you by dragging up your past...see the thread a few above yours. Still disgusting.

[niyad]

11. I know. I was appalled by that post.

[Docreed2003]

17. Me too

[malaise]

12. All I know is that we will never fly United again

That simple

[niyad]

14. same here. have already told them so, and they used to be my airline of choice.

[AgadorSparticus]

146. Us too. This is just outrageous! Besides, who would want to fly an airline

That doesn't hold up its end of the bargain? That is just flushing money down the toilet.

[ehrnst]

16. The fine print on that ticket allows them to do this.

And the internet can make them pay through the nose for it.

[JHB]

70. The inevitable lawsuit will make them pay for it too...

The entire situation is due to United's inadequate policies for dealing with the situation: getting already-seated passengers to voluntarily relinquish their paid-for seats.

It was the company executives' decision to restrict inducement options to the extent that the on-site employees were left with extremely limited options when there were no takers. Either there was no provision to offer more -- or use other options, like cash rather than vouchers -- or a higher-level decision was not available in the necessary time frame.

It was up to them to buy the ticket back, and under the circumstances it was a seller's market. Vouchers are useless for infrequent flyers, and often have too many restrictions than regulars want to deal with. They took a gamble that they wouldn't run into a situation where that made the difference, and they lost, on camera.

[Ohioblue22]

19. the contract you agree to when you buy the ticket is that you will give up your seat

if asked . now before people start calling me facist just let me say that I don't agree with the policy so don't call me a racist. That's what it says on the back of the ticket

[annabanana]

25. yup..in the nearly illegible tiny print in the 25th paragraph, courtesy of the

airline industry's lobbyists.

[Ohioblue22]

31. the print you need a lawyer to decipher

[athena]

69. We need some new regulations to change that.

In what other sort of business is it legal to sell someone something and then take it away? When you buy your ticket, you're paying for United to get you from place A to place B by a certain time. Things United can't control like the weather might result in a delay, but logistical problems United caused should not be a reason to inconvenience someone who paid for a ticket.

Suppose I had a business selling antiques. Suppose I sold you an antique vase for $100. Just as you were about to leave my store, my mother walked in and said she wanted the vase. Could I yank that vase out of your hands, hand you another, inferior vase, and give the original vase to my mother? No. That would be theft because you've already paid for the vase. Why is it that we allow large companies to get away with things that would be considered illegal if small businesses did them?

[pnwmom]

73. The regulations require them to give the bumped passenger a WRITTEN statements of his rights.

I didn't see that in the video, did you?

[Ohioblue22]

118. I didn't watch the video

[Ilsa]

99. There is fine print, though.

The airline is obligated to ask you prior to boarding, not after. Hence the financial incentives universally offered when passengersare alresdy seated.

The airline can only remove you from your seat if you are ill, present a danger to crew or passengers, or interfere in the performance of the flight crew.

[Ohioblue22]

120. yea I was hearing that on thom Hartmann . they can deny your boarding

but once you're in your seat there are only a couple of reasons they can throw you out

[regnaD kciN]

122. That's "Rule 25," and only applies BEFORE boarding...

Once you are actually on the plane, Rule 21 applies instead, and doesn't give the airline that right.

[Ohioblue22]

123. yes I am finding this out . apparently once you've been seated there is only

a short list of reasons that you can be pulled

[WoonTars]

125. I read somewhere else that only applies BEFORE you are on the plane...

...the only way they can ask you to leave your seat is for a specific set of reasons, none of which include "we f*cked up and need your seat for an employee otherwise we're out thousands of dollars in flight crew reassignments"..

[pnwmom]

127. No, it does NOT say that on the United Airlines ticket.

Rule 21 lists specific reasons for removing passengers from their seat, and all the reasons have to do with safety and behavior -- not merely their need for an empty seat.

Rule 25 is about overbooking -- and all it does is allow them to deny people boarding. But they had already boarded him.

Here's the UA contract:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028919065

And here's a law prof's analysis:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028919487

[Ohioblue22]

129. yes I have been Informed I heard on thom Hartmann

[hoovjim78]

29. This should be the reaction of all of us

This is the only way to fight the corporate takeover that has been building for almost two generations. Guess who let it happen.

[calimary]

83. Welcome to DU, hoovjim781

I keep going back to - "hey, United, just exactly how much DID you save by keeping the compensation so low - for passengers to give up the seats that they PAID FOR? Just how much DID you save? How are your stock prices doing since then? How's the PR - and how much is the effort to clean this up going to cost - if indeed it even somehow helps? How much - how many millions of dollars - is this going to cost you because you didn't want to spend a few extra thousand up front, early-on, when you could have nipped this in the bud?"

What's the answer? Maybe with their mentality, the next step is denying everyone their cell phones inflight - so that when future incidents occur, nobody can record them? That video of them brutalizing that paying passenger, REGARDLESS of any other details, is gonna live forever. And hurt the company forever.

On the other hand, what if they'd offered a coupla thousand bucks to induce passengers to give up their seats? Free cash money plus a hotel room for those forced to stay over an extra day? What kind of PR would THAT give them? Probably a lot of positive feedback and a momentary story that disappears in WAY less than a complete news cycle. Instead, they've got a nightmare on their hands that's gonna stay in the news for a long time. And ANY time United has another problem that makes the news, you better believe that video will be played yet again.

Pennywise/pound-foolish. That's almost always the attitude of Corporate America. And look what it can (and WILL) cost them.

Hell, if I was running a competing airline, I'd have a series of new commercials up and running ASAP, to emphasize how much nicer MY company treats its passengers, even when there's a problem.

[Fast Walker 52]

34. United lost a billion dollars overnight

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/investing/united-airlines-stock-passenger-flight-video/

[niyad]

36. too bad that was all they lost

[hatrack]

53. Good, let them lose even more

I will never, ever step aboard any plane run by United or its affiliates.

[Fast Walker 52]

68. I'm not sure I can guarantee that, but I will definitely avoid them if possible

They used to be good before 9/11, but after that, they went downhill and I've had trouble with them in recent years.

[colorado_ufo]

35. Just hit them the only place it really hurts:

In their pockets! I am cutting up my United travel card today.

[niyad]

38. refusing to "fly the not-so-friendly skies" ever again.

[hamsterjill]

40. Has there been any statement from the passenger?

I'm betting he's already got an attorney and has been told to say nothing. He's going to own United before all of this is said and done - and rightfully so.

If this passenger was indeed a physician who was on his way to treat a patient or patients, there may have been a legitimate reason as to why he was unwilling to give up his seat. To my knowledge, that part hasn't been confirmed, but if it is the case, it is definitely significant.

Before there are more decries of "he should have left the plane and taken the fight outside", I'd like to know the full story of why he was so adamant about not leaving.

[niyad]

44. see this post on DR. David Dao

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028917439

[hamsterjill]

52. Thank you!

I wasn't aware he'd been named. So he IS a doctor!!!

United is phucked!

[niyad]

54. yes, he is a doctor. but, as others have pointed out, doctor or unemployed, NOBODY deserves

to be treated as he was.

[ProfessorPlum]

107. +1

Hear hear

[Snotcicles]

42. Why did they randomly select who was to be booted. Shouldn't it have been the last tickets sold?

Just a question about their methods.

[niyad]

46. and remember, these were passengers already boarded and seated.

[Snotcicles]

48. And any over booking occurs after capacity is met. nt

[rocktivity]

87. And AFTER everyone was boarded and seated they found out they had crewmembers to transport?

That's what bothers me -- along with their overbooking to begin with. P.S. You don't bump a doctor, either -- that's just basic common sense.


rocktivity

[maxrandb]

45. I thought this post was from Neil Gorsich

I hope that when Dems take back the House and Senate, they decide that the Supreme Court needs 4 more members and they ram through the most progressives they can find.

I want justices so far to the lest that Lindsey Graham will get the vapors and John McCain will wet himself.

[niyad]

47. ohhh, I do LOVE the way you think!!

[Snotcicles]

50. Being that McConnell has rendered tradition null and void lets do it. And all in the first 100 days.

They asked for it.

[OrwellwasRight]

63. I agree but it will NEVER happen.

Dems who get elected President NEVER nominate actual liberals to the bench. Just center-left people. That is why we have such an imbalance.

[IronLionZion]

110. Does this United case set a precedent

where we can have sworn officers taze and manhandle the judge and drag him out of court in the same manner?

If it's the case for average citizens, then it should apply to Supreme Court Justices, just to be fair.

[Ilsa]

56. It looks like they CANNOT remove you once you are seated unless

Your behavior presents a problem for the flight crew.

Hartmann went through the ticket contracts of several major ALs. They can deny boarding you for overbooking (or needing the seats to move other crew), but once you are on, they can't boot you unless you are interfering with the operation of the flight crew or are a danger to yourself or others. According to to Thom, they may have removed him illegally.

Furthermore, I think Adult Protective Services should have a say in how this elderly man was abused.

TV pundit said the four crew that needed the seats blew it by showing up at the last minute to claim them, or the ticket agents blew it by not remembering, and they seated everyone when they shouldn't have.

I'm glad UAL's stock is down 3% today.

[niyad]

58. oh, I hope that Dr. Dao end ups owning UA.

[Raster]

102. "Welcome to United Airlines annual shareholder's meeting...

...we'd like to introduce our new Chairman and majority shareholder, Dr. David Dao...

...FUCK YOU, UNITED! I will NEVER fly United again.

[WePurrsevere]

77. From what I've found so far...

I agree with Hartman.

Bumping is done BEFORE passengers are loaded, not after. He was already boarded and settled in so he had a reasonable expectation of that flight getting him to where he's going and he absolutely should not have been physically assaulted by anyone no less over this.

Trained security cops or not doesn't give them a right to assault someone like they did and especially not a 69 yr old senior. FWIW I just did a quick search and the penalties for assaulting a senior are higher than for younger (IDK how wise spread this is now, I just know that NY has similar laws):
https://www.criminallawyer-chicago.com/practice-areas/chicago-assault-lawyer/aggravated-battery/aggravated-battery-person-age-60/

I hope the doctor takes the whole lot of them to court and wins big enough to send a strong message that this was NOT acceptable.

[rocktivity]

93. DING DING DING! Thom Hartmann and Ilsa, you're our grand prize winners!

They can deny boarding you for overbooking (or needing the seats to move other crew), but once you are on, they can't boot you unless you are interfering with the operation of the flight crew or are a danger to yourself or others...

That's what I've been trying find out all day, because it hasn't made sense to me -- the plane is boarded and ready to leave, and they have to kick off people AND pay them to make room for last minute crew? Why not just spend the money on putting the crew on the next flight out? Of course, not overbooking at all would help...


rocktivity

[Ilsa]

101. Or if you are ill. They can remove you if you're sick. I forgot that one. NT

[pnwmom]

121. Yes -- and there's this:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

[Ilsa]

124. Yeah, and the manipulation of passengers decribed here:

Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.

If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.

Once someone in possession of a valid ticket has been seated – whether on an airplane, a train or bus, or at the symphony – he cannot be ordered to give up that which he has a valid contractual right to enjoy, simply because his seat is needed for someone else.

The demand that he give up his seat was illegal, and he wasn't required to follow that order. Therefore, they cannot use, "he was belligerent" as an excuse to deplane him.

[question everything]

131. I hope that he sue Untied for all the millions that they pay their CEO and then some

What is infuriating is that while the CEO issues half-ass apology, his internal email praised the employees..

[AgadorSparticus]

82. I totally agree. What slays me are all the corporate sympathizers on here.

W.t.f.....

[Raster]

98. "slays me" is putting it mildly... sheeple worshiping at the altar of the wolves...

VOTE. EVERY. REPUBLICAN. OUT. OF. OFFICE!

[calimary]

132. That's a rather delicious way to put it, Raster!

I love good writing!

[Raster]

143. Thank you, calimary... very much appreciated!

[AgadorSparticus]

141. Yes!!! They ALL need to go!

[Raster]

145. VOTE. EVERY. REPUBLICAN. OUT. OF. OFFICE!

For the security of our Country! For the sake of our Planet! For the survival of our Species!

[anneboleyn]

149. Me too. I think DU is infested with bots and sock puppets as they post EXTREMELY un-DU

points of view (and they always cluster together). There is no way these posters (as I said bots and sock puppets) are committed democrats or even libertarians or greens or whatever. The pro-corporate stuff is a dead give-away.

[OrwellwasRight]

151. it's sad but has been around here for at least 8 years

It should not be a surprise. It's a version of the primary fight: Trust v. Mistrust in the status quo. Overhaul of the system v. Tinkering around the edges. Fundamental suspicion of concentrated economic power v. The view that such economic power is benign.

[world wide wally]

109. We'll have to start calling the cops the corps

[Amimnoch]

112. This would not happen to me. I will not sit on my status.

I have been a frequent flier with United Airlines legacy company Continental Airlines since 1997.

In 1997-1998, I was a silver level with the (at the time frequent flier program Skyteam)
In 1999-2001 I was gold level elite with Continental Skyteam
in 2002-2009 I was Platnium level elite with Continental Skyteam
In 2009, Continental left the Skyteam partnership and joined Star Alliance.
In 2010 to 2012 I was a Platnium flier with Continental Star Alliance (highest mileage membership)
From 2013 when Continental was absorbed by United until this year, I've been a Premier 1K member (highest annual frequent flier level).j

I currently have 1,272,743 mileage balance, and am already renewed to gold level with 62K qualifying miles.

I am not the customer that United would ever eject from one of their flights. I have never before witnessed treatment of another passenger in such a manner in all my years of flying with them.

I notified United yesterday that my last flight on March 27th to Rio returning to Houston on March 29th will be the last flight I book with them through my company travel portal. Not only was the treatment of one of their customers completely unacceptable, their follow up comments regarding that treatment is beyond contemptible.

My Chase Presidential Plus rewards program card will be cancelled at the end of may.
I will burn up my award miles using their flights for free (not giving away my earned free flights)
I will then never fly with them again.

In my feedback, I advised them nothing short of compensating the gentleman that they slighted so horrendously in such a way that he publicly accepts their apology, and them changing their terms of service to clearly state that they will not forcibly remove a passenger from one of their flights again, and increase the passenger rights of their own accord will get me to even think about returning to their company as a customer.

[athena]

113. Good for you!

I'm sure they pay attention when a frequent customer like that sends such a message.

[Snotcicles]

138. That's puttin your money where your mouth is. nt

[Hekate]

135. Christ on a trailer hitch. What a bunch of fascist apologists we have collected here.

[marlakay]

152. United has been bad for long time

About 15 yrs ago I booked a nonstop flight to Hawaii with them, booked it 9 months in advance so i could get aisle seat since I had back problems long flight.

Then day of flight they wanted me to switch with this couple and take middle seat who had just booked flight two weeks before.

I said no explained about my back, rest of flight they were openly rude to me dropped ice on me and gave couple free drinks and movies and kept telling them sorry.

Only time in life I wrote a letter complaining and they did nothing. I have never flown them since.

[Binkie The Clown]

157. I'm so glad I don't have to fly, because I'm already where I want to be. n/t

[athena]

158. Flying is bad for the environment, too.

Hopefully this incident will further decrease people's interest in flying and increase the popularity of alternatives like rail.

[Binkie The Clown]

161. Rail is fun, which is why Dumb Turnip is cutting over 200 cities from passenger service. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Kick and Rec

[niyad]

185. . . . .