United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[T.Lex]

What is the rational and reasonable process you are referring to?

[sigh]

Short form.

1) Get people in the seats.
2) Realize there's 4 rear ends that need seats in a way that trumps the paying public's rear ends.
3) Sort out who needs to get off the plane.
4) Try to get them off the plane with words of enticement.
5) If that doesn't work, call in security people.
6) Security people told which rear ends don't belong.
7) Security people remove the non-belonging rear ends.

That appears to be the process. Is that not a rational and reasonable (sketch of a) process?

 

[HoughMade]

...but can we all at least agree that in the original video, the woman yelling "No, no...this is wrong, etc." needs to be punished in some way? I mean, if she's married, I know her husband in being punished, but...

 

[Fargo]

[sigh]

Short form.

1) Get people in the seats.
2) Realize there's 4 rear ends that need seats in a way that trumps the paying public's rear ends.
3) Sort out who needs to get off the plane.
4) Try to get them off the plane with words of enticement.
5) If that doesn't work, call in security people.
6) Security people told which rear ends don't belong.
7) Security people remove the non-belonging rear ends.

That appears to be the process. Is that not a rational and reasonable (sketch of a) process?

No, not at all. You left out the parts where:

1. You sell someone something and then after you take their money and begin performance you decide that you're going to take it back from them when it is far from clear that that is what your contract says.

2. You also left out the part about where you want the mall cops to enforce your civil contract remedies.

3. You also leave the part out where the mall cops bloody the hell out of the guy over your private contract dispute with apparent disregard for their agencies policies and procedures.

Now, if you mean that the process is rational and reasonable in so far as it has led to

A. 10 figure loss of your companies valuation,

B. federal and state investigations of both your business practices and the security guard's behavior,

C. likely firings,

D. new policies and procedures adverse to your business interests,

then I suppose I do agree.

 

[T.Lex]

[sigh]

No, not at all. You left out the parts where:

If you really want to play this game.

1. You sell someone something and then after you take their money and begin performance you decide that you're going to take it back from them when it is far from clear that that is what your contract says.

Except where the contract, the policies referenced in the contract, and federal law set expectations that people ignore when they travel by air.

Modern life is complicated. If people want to retain 50 year old beliefs about air travel, that's great. Just don't expect everyone else to go along with it.

2. You also left out the part about where you want the mall cops to enforce your civil contract remedies.

Mall cops empowered by federal law and private contract.

What is the alternative, at a policy level? The plane doesn't fly? The loudest objector wins?

3. You also leave the part out where the mall cops bloody the hell out of the guy over your private contract dispute with apparent disregard for their agencies policies and procedures.

I didn't leave that out. It isn't part of the process. I mean, from a six-sigma perspective, there should be something addressing that, but it an exception-event (or whatever they call it now). Like I said in the post prior to the one you quoted - human beings resolved it. Expecting perfection from that is like expecting every arrest to go smoothly.

Now, if you mean that the process is rational and reasonable in so far as it has led to

A. 10 figure loss of your companies valuation,

Valuations go up and down in a market. As I recall, it was even or up immediately after the event. I wouldn't read much into the propriety of the process or UAL's actions in the reaction of the market. I'm kinda surprised you are.

B. federal and state investigations of both your business practices and the security guard's behavior,

As I think you know, investigations do not necessarily indicate guilt or liability.

Investigations of human actions that led to a battered and bloody dude seem like a good thing. Again, those are processes themselves.

C. likely firings,

Doesn't necessarily mean the process was flawed, or that people weren't following it. Depending on who gets fired and why, there might be more lawsuits.

D. new policies and procedures adverse to your business interests,

Policies and procedures should always be open to evolving. Perhaps the next rule will be to require phones turned off upon sitting down in the seat or no video recording of the inside of the cabin for security purposes.

 

[Fargo]

[sigh]



If you really want to play this game.


Except where the contract, the policies referenced in the contract, and federal law set expectations that people ignore when they travel by air.

Modern life is complicated. If people want to retain 50 year old beliefs about air travel, that's great. Just don't expect everyone else to go along with it.


Mall cops empowered by federal law and private contract.

What is the alternative, at a policy level? The plane doesn't fly? The loudest objector wins?


I didn't leave that out. It isn't part of the process. I mean, from a six-sigma perspective, there should be something addressing that, but it an exception-event (or whatever they call it now). Like I said in the post prior to the one you quoted - human beings resolved it. Expecting perfection from that is like expecting every arrest to go smoothly.



Valuations go up and down in a market. As I recall, it was even or up immediately after the event. I wouldn't read much into the propriety of the process or UAL's actions in the reaction of the market. I'm kinda surprised you are.


As I think you know, investigations do not necessarily indicate guilt or liability.

Investigations of human actions that led to a battered and bloody dude seem like a good thing. Again, those are processes themselves.


Doesn't necessarily mean the process was flawed, or that people weren't following it. Depending on who gets fired and why, there might be more lawsuits.



Policies and procedures should always be open to evolving. Perhaps the next rule will be to require phones turned off upon sitting down in the seat or no video recording of the inside of the cabin for security purposes.

Hey man, if you really really want to try and defend people who have already admitted they were wrong on the kind of grounds you stated above you're free to go ahead and do so. I would simply suggest you, and most of the airline employees posting on here, maybe have been living in the corporate world just a little too long.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey man, if you really really want to try and defend people who have already admitted they were wrong on the kind of grounds you stated above you're free to go ahead and do so. I would simply suggest you, and most of the airline employees posting on here, maybe have been living in the corporate world just a little too long.

Do you think the good doctor was "right" to not comply?

It appears you are defending asshattery.

Moreover, who was "wrong"? The air crew who had to get from where they were to where they needed to be? The employees who identified the good doctor as someone who was to be removed? The security personnel who were told who to take someone off the plane, without deciding who that was? Were they supposed to say, "Hey, this guy doesn't want to go, you should find someone else"?

Or is yours a simplistic venting of the spleen against The Man?

 

[avboiler11]

Look how this incident hurt UAL's stock price!!1!

I bet it's really taken a beating over the lon-

Oh, nevermind.

 

[Fargo]

Do you think the good doctor was "right" to not comply?

I posted pages back that I didn't know who was in the right necessarily on the contract dispute. If I'm not getting paid to litigate his contract rights, I'm really not going to get super carried away in parsing the construction of rule five, 25, and 21 as well as which provisions are enforceable or unenforceable. I see arguments either way, but under the basic premise that contracts are construed against the drafting party I would say the doctor has the stronger case.

It appears you are defending asshattery.

While I am unsurprised that corporate counsel sees it that way, I also didn't see him do anything other then attempt to enforce his contractual rights. I specifically didn't see him use force on anyone, hurt anyone, or try to get the police to enforce his private contract. As such, I am less concerned about his behavior than the airline/mall cops.

Moreover, who was "wrong"? The air crew who had to get from where they were to where they needed to be? The employees who identified the good doctor as someone who was to be removed? The security personnel who were told who to take someone off the plane, without deciding who that was? Were they supposed to say, "Hey, this guy doesn't want to go, you should find someone else"

See above, your logistical screw ups do not constitute an emergency on my part. Every corporation and organization you list in that paragraph has already admitted they were wrong.

Or is yours a simplistic venting of the spleen against The Man?

Unsurprised that the corporate lawyer would use the word simplistic to describe an fairly well flushed out argument with specific legal points that doesn't kiss the corporate Ass. Strangely though, my simplistic argument appears to be carrying the day in every relevant aspect of the incident. I haven't seen United and Chicago airport security doing much winning based upon defending their now-abandoned process.

 

[Fargo]

Look how this incident hurt UAL's stock price!!1!

I bet it's really taken a beating over the lon-

Oh, nevermind.

LOL do you know how to read your top chart?

 

[avboiler11]

LOL do you know how to read your top chart?

Yes.

Did you read the bottom, where it showed the stock fell squarely within its previous month's trading range?

Here it is, biggie-sized:

 

[Fargo]

Yes.

Did you read the bottom, where it showed the stock fell squarely within its previous month's trading range?

Here it is, biggie-sized:

Yeah sure, what all happened as regarded united in March? Your top chart still says everything that needs to be said about how the market views United in the context of this incident. Long term, the new procedures policies and regulations that are already coming out of this incident are going to make United, and most of the other airlines as well, a less profitable endeavor at least in the short term.

That blow will of course be cushioned by the massive amount of tax dollars already flowing to them and will continue to do so regardless of how crappily they run their business.

 

[T.Lex]

I posted pages back that I didn't know who was in the right necessarily on the contract dispute. If I'm not getting paid to litigate his contract rights, I'm really not going to get super carried away in parsing the construction of rule five, 25, and 21 as well as which provisions are enforceable or unenforceable. I see arguments either way, but under the basic premise that contracts are construed against the drafting party I would say the doctor has the stronger case.

All of which doesn't answer my question. Was he "right"? Did he do the "right" thing in his civil disobedience against corporate greed?

While I am unsurprised that corporate counsel sees it that way, I also didn't see him do anything other then attempt to enforce his contractual rights. I specifically didn't see him use force on anyone, hurt anyone, or try to get the police to enforce his private contract. As such, I am less concerned about his behavior than the airline/mall cops.

Yes, he did try to get the authority involved to enforce his side of the contract. They declined. So he refused to move.

Or in your opinion does refusal to move not equate to resistance?

See above, your logistical screw ups do not constitute an emergency on my part. Every corporation and organization you list in that paragraph has already admitted they were wrong.

Again, you aren't responding to my question. There were people involved. Which of the airlines' people did the wrong thing?

Unsurprised that the corporate lawyer would use the word simplistic to describe an fairly well flushed out argument with specific legal points that doesn't kiss the corporate Ass. Strangely though, my simplistic argument appears to be carrying the day in every relevant aspect of the incident. I haven't seen United and Chicago airport security doing much winning based upon defending their now-abandoned process.

People elected or appointed try to appease perceptions.

 

[HoughMade]

All I know is that I want to bring back the days of no overbooking...and while we're at it, bring back decent meals and no fees for unlimited baggage and all the little conveniences that used to come with flying.

I miss the days when flying was largely limited to the upper middle class and above and was not the "Greyhound" of the air. Doubling the prices to equate to what they were in 1980 sounds like the way to go....because that's what moves like this would do.

 

[KMaC]

The downfall of the air travel industry, and western civilization, can be traced to the track suit. Once the track suit became fashion apparel rather than an athletic warm up it was only a matter of time until it became the uniform of the flying public. Their attitude towards the plane crews followed suit (yep, that's a pun) and that's how we got to where we are today.

 

[SEIndSAM]

All I know is that I want to bring back the days of no overbooking...and while we're at it, bring back decent meals and no fees for unlimited baggage and all the little conveniences that used to come with flying.

I miss the days when flying was largely limited to the upper middle class and above and was not the "Greyhound" of the air. Doubling the prices to equate to what they were in 1980 sounds like the way to go....because that's what moves like this would do.

Back then, there was also a Smoking and Non-Smoking section......As likely to return as regulated air fares.

 

[T.Lex]

The downfall of the air travel industry, and western civilization, can be traced to the track suit. Once the track suit became fashion apparel rather than an athletic warm up it was only a matter of time until it became the uniform of the flying public. Their attitude towards the plane crews followed suit (yep, that's a pun) and that's how we got to where we are today.

Point of clarification: yoga pants?

 

[rob63]

I can't help but think that if the airlines were required to offer actual cash as the incentive when there is an overbooking, the equation would change enough that the practice would soon disappear.

 

[KMaC]

Point of clarification: yoga pants?

OK, technically tracks suits were the drive by to civility and yoga pants became the car bomb.

 

[ghuns]

The downfall of the air travel industry, and western civilization, can be traced to the track suit. Once the track suit became fashion apparel rather than an athletic warm up it was only a matter of time until it became the uniform of the flying public. Their attitude towards the plane crews followed suit (yep, that's a pun) and that's how we got to where we are today.

Track suits, and emotional support animals.

 

[JettaKnight]

The downfall of the air travel industry, and western civilization, can be traced to the track suit. Once the track suit became fashion apparel rather than an athletic warm up it was only a matter of time until it became the uniform of the flying public. Their attitude towards the plane crews followed suit (yep, that's a pun) and that's how we got to where we are today.

YES!

This is why I wear a jacket when flying; my little way to bring it back. At least I can be civil and create a (very) small civil space around me.