Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
Depends if they feel the money he brings in as CEO is worth more than the loss they're seeing now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
United Airlines violently drags a doctor off a plane so employee could take his seat
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
That's nice and all but you shouldn't have overbooked flights in the first place, and this seems like common practice which is all the more ludicrous.
Audioboxer
Member
Plus like this PR statement just put out, it'll be the employees who are normally held to company book of conduct with a shotgun at their head, fired/disciplined or blamed for "not using common sense".
The CEO tried blaming the customer, now it's time to blame the employees (of whom are at fault, but as I rambled about on the previous page, company culture/CEOs act like mad lunatics around any ounce of autonomy).
Amibguous Cad
Member
Why is the TSA getting a pass here? United has it in the contract of your ticket that you might be involuntarily bumped from a flight, a policy that ultimately leads to lower fares and a smoother-operating air travel system.
The problem wasn't with the bumping - and once bumped, I don't think it's unreasonable to call security to get him removed. The problem is that once called security used force massively disproportional to the severity of the situation.
All the anti-United stuff is amusing, but I wish we were having a conversation about what level of force we're comfortable with airline security using in a post-9/11 world.
The problem wasn't with the bumping - and once bumped, I don't think it's unreasonable to call security to get him removed. The problem is that once called security used force massively disproportional to the severity of the situation.
All the anti-United stuff is amusing, but I wish we were having a conversation about what level of force we're comfortable with airline security using in a post-9/11 world.
The stock really isn't hurting from this.
I do agree that the force was too much, but then what? How do you get this person to leave their seat?
old manatee
Banned
Take them to their destination.
Audioboxer
Member
You don't, you move on. Logic/statistics dictate someone will leave the plane for a cash payout of $800~1000. Reports state 3 people already had. That's 3 people who didn't volunteer, who left when selected at random.
The second you bring on security to remove a paying passenger, who hasn't done anything such as get drunk/abuse/get violent, you're "not using common sense".
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. Tried blaming customer and supported employees. Shit. Didn't work. Support customer and blame employees. As if this wasn't hammered home that this is how they wanted this to be dealt with. The only regret is that this blew up. Otherwise, they wouldn't give a shit.
Profit over people.
Standard procedure in this case is to take care of it before the passangers board the plane. Once the passangers have boarded, bringing in security to forcefully removing a boarded, paid costumer against their will is terrible practice. Even the CEO acknowledged that it should not happen.
Amibguous Cad
Member
If I understand it correctly, the problem here is that contractually United offers a certain percentage of the ticket cost in bumps, then goes to involuntary bumps. That shouldn't happen. Overbooking earns airlines a pretty nice sum of money. They can afford to keep bidding until someone bites at $2,000 or $3,000 and voluntarily leaves.
I mean, if you're fine with fares increasing and more delays because personnel can't get a flight to where they're most needed, then sure.
I get that it shouldn't have come to removal, but in this particular incident, when all else fails and the person who refuses to leave their seat, what do you do?
Orthogonal
Member
This wasn't an overbooked situation and everyone needs to stop calling it that. It was a business logistics decision and they tried to use their overlooking policy to address it, with disastrous results.
hydrophilic attack
Member
You get someone else to leave voluntarily through offering a good incentive. Not rocket science
Smh at this post
Audioboxer
Member
That is what you do above, you move on. If you explain to someone they've been selected and have to leave and they fight you back with such ferocity you literally are out of options, just accept this is one customer who you could probably give 10 grand and they'd say no. Maybe they're wealthy and money means nothing (no 1st class on this plane so everyone is in economy), maybe they genuinely have an appointment they can't wait 24 hours for, etc. Just back down when someone won't budge after repeated tellings and move on and as I said someone on that plane will very likely take cold hard cash if selected. 3 other passengers did. 3 passengers that refused to voluntarily get off, but got off when selected involuntarily.
Keep in mind this was genuinely an overnight wait. Sometimes involuntary bumping may just be a few hours wait with compensation, which is likely to be easier to sell than 24 hours waiting. That was another part of the puzzle the management/crew should have been thinking about "with common sense".
I'm asking how you physically remove someone without harming them when they're resisting. We're talking strictly about removal, not the ideal solution.
old manatee
Banned
I'd rather pay more for a ticket than have to worry that I will randomly be chosen for a physical assault. Airlines like add-on fees. If there was an option to pay an extra fee and avoid being physically assaulted I would pay it.
Orthogonal
Member
If there is a legitimate reason to remove someone and they don't leave voluntarily, then force is necessary and harm is a possibility. That, however, doesn't apply to this situation.
Yeah I swear people, no one should be defending this shit. People should think twice about buying united tickets too, this company should be out of businesss this year.
I 100% agree. I was asking in general, even though I was coming off as pedantic. My post was in reference to how much level of force should ever be used in a post 9/11 world and I was genuinely curious how someone would answer, and you were the only taker.
Thank you.
edit: my other point is I guess, it should never get to the point where you have to select someone at random. They should keep jacking up the price until someone bites.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't know. This doesn't strike me as a particularly complex problem to address. I think particularly once seated, you have to basically first acknowledge that you need a solid reason to throw a person off of a plane. Have they committed some actionable offense? Do they present a risk to public safety? Something along those lines. "Whoops we have employees that need to be somewhere else" doesn't really cut it in terms of being able to force someone off a plane.
Now, perhaps it really is very, very important that these employees board this plane. Is it worth inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers on a different flight if it's going to be cancelled unless these four employees are allowed to board this one? Maybe not. But I think the only solution here is that you're going to have to loosen the purse strings more in terms of trying to coerce someone to volunteer. It's really quite ludicrous to think that the only solution they had in terms of how to deal with such a situation is to basically eeny, meeny, miny, moe someone off the plane.
teruterubozu
Member
Personally I think this has more to do with a post-Trump world than a post-9/11 world but I digress.
Agreed. I think United (and other airlines) need to consider raising the maximum on what you are allowed to offer passengers. This shouldn't have ever gotten to a random selection phase, thought I don't think this is what occurred. NBC News reported last night Dao and his wife volunteered until they found out they wouldn't be getting home until the next day. This makes me think United lied and didn't "randomly select" anyone, but targeted Dao and his wife because they had previously volunteered.
Because it's not the TSA's problem. They're just doing what they're told based on the airliner's own judgements and mistakes. I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't know all the details that led up to the confrontation.
old manatee
Banned
If they wanted David Dao to leave his seat they should have flown the plane to his destination and opened the door for him. End of story.
BronsonLee
Member
I'm guessing that, barring all the voluntary stuff, they'd just call airport security
Audioboxer
Member
Due to the way it's structured just now voluntary is often vouchers as people will snap them up at the gates who are flexible travellers. I mean if you can afford to leave a few hours later, or even the next day if your hotel and food is paid, and you get a voucher for future travel, then yeah, snapped up by some. Considering the gulf in figures between voluntary vs involuntary that is often how it normally goes (I posted Delta figures earlier, 120k+ voluntary bumps in 2016, only 1.2k involuntary).
Or part of this informative infographic explains it clearly
As I said to you above though the "common sense" approach here is move on, and eventually find someone who will take the involuntary cash.
I would say long term the Government needs to look at regulating voluntary bumps better, but the airlines will probably argue most people accept them as is. Making this mess a "unique" situation that required autonomy and "common sense" to handle without a "swat squad" coming on and manhandling a passenger.
Aceofspades
Banned
What? American Airliners keep booking seats even after the plane is full? What kind of practice is that?
BronsonLee
Member
Is it Southwest? That's how they do it. They'll assign you a boarding position by letter (A, B, C) and you just board in order. After that it's free reign
Due to the way it's structured just now voluntary is often vouchers as people will snap them up at the gates who are flexible travellers. I mean if you can afford to leave a few hours later, or even the next day if your hotel and food is paid, and you get a voucher for future travel, then yeah, snapped up by some. Considering the gulf in figures between voluntary vs involuntary that is often how it normally goes (I posted Delta figures earlier, 120k+ voluntary bumps in 2016, only 1.2k involuntary).
Or part of this informative infographic explains it clearly
As I said to you above though the "common sense" approach here is move on, and eventually find someone who will take the involuntary cash.
I would say long term the Government needs to look at regulating voluntary bumps better, but the airlines will probably argue most people accept them as is. Making this mess a "unique" situation that required autonomy and "common sense" to handle without a "swat squad" coming on and manhandling a passenger.
I want to know how insistent someone would have to be to get the cash equivalent for those vouchers. I would always opt for the cash, and in fact I think it's law in Europe that they have to give you cash if you ask for it.
Audioboxer
Member
Even if it did astronomically high chance someone/some people on your flight will accept voluntary compensation and you'd be none the wiser unless you were around at the gate to hear the announcement/see them go up and accept.
EU law is the same as the US, only involuntary bumps are guaranteed cash.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Re...our-rights-when-you-are-bumped-from-a-flight/
However, you can demand cash for voluntary if you want to try, but it's not a "legal right", meaning the airline can reject your ask and continue to try and pedal vouchers.
Hence, maybe it's time there is pressure on the airlines for voluntary compensation to be better regulated in the consumers favour. Most will accept involuntary leading to higher compensation amounts, but at the very least voluntary should maybe have a minimum "lower" cash payout mandated. So $400 of vouchers, or $200 cash.
Moff
Member
Due to the way it's structured just now voluntary is often vouchers as people will snap them up at the gates who are flexible travellers. I mean if you can afford to leave a few hours later, or even the next day if your hotel and food is paid, and you get a voucher for future travel, then yeah, snapped up by some. Considering the gulf in figures between voluntary vs involuntary that is often how it normally goes (I posted Delta figures earlier, 120k+ voluntary bumps in 2016, only 1.2k involuntary).
Or part of this informative infographic explains it clearly
As I said to you above though the "common sense" approach here is move on, and eventually find someone who will take the involuntary cash.
I would say long term the Government needs to look at regulating voluntary bumps better, but the airlines will probably argue most people accept them as is. Making this mess a "unique" situation that required autonomy and "common sense" to handle without a "swat squad" coming on and manhandling a passenger.
It's mind boggling that they just beat a guy up instead of offering money until someone says yes. I hope that this PR hell was worth the few measly bucks they saved.
One important thing to note is that the flight was not overbooked.
They kicked off 4 paying customers because at the last moment four United flight attendants/pilots approached the gate and said they needed to get somewhere.
Everyone had already boarded the plane and was ready to go.
They kicked off 4 paying customers because at the last moment four United flight attendants/pilots approached the gate and said they needed to get somewhere.
Everyone had already boarded the plane and was ready to go.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I really think the phrasing "overbooking" is muddying the waters quite a bit here. Maybe by some airline definition that's what happened? But what happened here was that after regular customers were boarded and seated, 4 employees needed to board the flight for logistical reasons so that they could work a different flight.
This wasn't a situation of "oops, there was a computer error and we sold 5 more tickets then seats."
One dumb thing I was just thinking about was sort of wondering why they don't have something like, I don't know, 5 seats always set aside for emergency situations. I apologize in advance for being a doofus when it comes to understanding the various safety regulations at play here that might prevent this, but I'm just thinking about chairs off the beaten path not in the main passenger areas that meet the minimum requirements to allow a passenger to sit in.
old manatee
Banned
Meathook: Marge, how did you get my jacket so clean? I've tried everything to get those blood and puke stains out. I've tried hitting them, I've tried yelling at 'em ...
All operators who run frequent short to medium hail flights do, worldwide.
That's before technical issues force a change of plane.
BronsonLee
Member
They actually do have a couple of these, they're called Deadhead/Jump seats
But they don't have four, more like 1-2? Remember that the attendants have seats too
Even the fucking CEO of the company isn't defending United any more. I don't even understand what the United defence force thinks it's defending any more...
alfredofroylan
Member
This whole thing is going to ended up as an example for textbooks.
Dude Abides
Banned
They did not check his criminal history before deciding who to involuntary deplane.
And you can't "make[] someone volunteer." The whole point of the word "volunteer" is that it's voluntary.
I don't believe this situation should ever arise unless the passenger themselves is disruptive to the point that some level of violence would be necessary in any circumstance, in which case that's the level of violence you should use.
I actually think the question should be turned around. If the physical violence was appropriate because he didn't comply, what if he was 6'5" and 300 lbs? Would it be appropriate for the cop to shoot him because he's not complying?
Unfortunately basically nobody is left to argue this point because the argument is so indefensible.
Polioliolio
Member
Probably the alt right projecting their cuckholding fetishes and submission to their wonderful corporate authorities.
Spartancarver
Member
Yeah. I really want to know how much money he walks away with after all this is done and settled.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
About that...
http://www.itfglobal.org/en/news-events/news/2015/june/qatar-guilty,-says-ilo/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/qatar-airways-scrap-policy-sack-pregnant-cabin-crew
To their credit, though, they are changing.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...-sack-cabin-crew-who-become-pregnant-or-marry
http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/511073182-qatar-airways-agrees-to-change-female-worker-policy
http://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2...ew-at-qatar-airways-now-being-treated-fairly/
WaPo just posted what will likely be my go-to op-ed whenever the next inevitable victim smear campaign begins.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.5d6ec6a8489c
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.5d6ec6a8489c
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked