Ex-Doctor with a bunch of felonies refuses to get off plane and gets what he deserves

[kimmy]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Well, if you get your way congratulations. Ticket prices will rise all across the board.

If overbooking is such a financially necessary evil in the airlines business,  then maybe they can use some of the resulting largesse to boost their "reaccommodation incentivization".  As many people have said, if they didn't get a volunteer for $800, they should have offered more.  Their own guidelines say they can go as high as $1350, and they didn't even go for that.

If overbooking is as efficient as they say it is, then bumping passengers from flights should actually be pretty rare. If it's actually not rare, then maybe they need to dial it back a little or tweak their algorithms.

 

Of course, as was mentioned earlier, this wasn't even a result of overbooking, it was because United decided at the last minute that they needed to move 4 employees to another airport.  Ever heard the phrase "bad planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part"? 

 

Obviously this is a gigantic PR debacle for United Airlines. Maybe the fine print on your boarding pass says they can do this, maybe they had the legal right to bring in the rent-a-cops to remove him. Guess what: nobody cares. 

A few years ago, a newspaper in the UK did some reporting on Starbucks' elaborate tax avoidance mechanisms... revealing that Starbucks didn't actually pay any tax at all in the UK. Starbucks' reaction: "we're not breaking any laws. What we're doing is completely legal."  As you can imagine, customers said "oh! If it's technically legal, then we don't see a problem with it."  Ha, no they didn't. They voted with their feet, filling Starbucks' UK-based, tax-paying competitors to the rafters. After a campaign of social media shaming and boycotts, Starbucks announced that they would voluntarily pay 10 million pounds per year or some such figure.  "technically legal" doesn't really move peoples' hearts.

Peoples' reaction to this incident isn't "well, they're technically allowed to do this."  Peoples' reaction is that this is a terrible way to treat paying customers. And it is. No other business would get away with this. If you bought a TV on sale, and the guys from BestBuy showed up at your house the next day and said "sorry, another customer wants to pay full price, so we need to take your TV back", you'd tell them to go to hell.  Not so with airlines.  When people fly, they're just relieved if they make it to their destination with their luggage and their dignity. They're willing to put up with the most obnoxious treatment from the security staff because they know the alternative is to not flying, or possibly getting tazered.   They're willing to put up with waiting hours in the airport for security screening. It's a one-hour flight to Vancouver from here, but when you factor in all the time spent at the airport, it's almost as fast to just drive. Customer expectations when traveling by plane have become so low that almost anything feels like a "win".  And that's another reason this incident has caught fire in social media. People feel like they've been pissed on for years by airlines, and it's gratifying to see them finally pay a price for it.

Dr Dao's decision to act the way he did was foolish and resulted in him getting a broken face and a concussion. Most of us wouldn't have done that.  Most of us would have meekly complied, and raged about it for days afterward.  Few of us would have defied the rent-a-cops, but all of us understand that we could get refused flight. Or "reaccommodated" as CEO Oscar Munoz put it. Most of us would have been like the 3 passengers who left the plane without getting beat up but were probably just as mad as Dr Dao.

It's infuriating to see the callous disregard for their customers. Maybe for the airline a flight is just some number on the ledger, but few people fly anywhere unless it's important to them. The cost and inconvenience of air travel is something most people don't do unless it's a big deal. So not getting to fly is also a big deal.

"You're a doctor? You have to see your patients tomorrow? Tough ****."

"You have to make a connecting flight? Don't care. **** you."

"You'll miss your son's graduation? Who gives a ****."

"You've been planning this vacation for months?  We don't **** care."

And for them to describe this as "reaccommodating" their customer has to be the stupidest euphemism since "alternative facts".  They didn't "reaccommodate" those passengers. They removed them from the plane. This kind of corporate-speak makes you wonder if they understand that there are actual humans affected by these decisions.

 -k

[Argus]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Just saw on CNN that the passenger received a broken nose, lost two teeth, received a concussion, and received injuries to his sinus.  He will require reconstructive surgery.  His lawyer says he came from Vietnam in 1975 and what happened to him was more horrifying than what happened to him in Vietnam.  His lawyer says the excessive force use on him was illegal.

United Airlines claims they will make changes so this will never happen again.

Guess he shoulda done what he was told then, huh.

[Argus]

You have to remember that the days when airlines catered to their customers with big, comfortable seats and smiling stewardesses serving wine are long gone. Airlines are in the cattle car business now, and that's the way their customers want it. They want the lowest possible price, even if that means they're crammed into tiny, thinly padded seats cheek by jowl with screaming babies and unwashed fat guys. Cut services to the bone, and cut pay rates for crew even further, and you get a happy public. Well, happier than they'd be if they had to pay more money anyway.

[Moonlight Graham]

16 hours ago, Bonam said:

Right, I agree. That's why the solution should have been to just keep raising the incentive rather than dragging people off the plane. 

That's what I thought too.  Eventually someone would bite.

[Wilber]

Quote

Of course, as was mentioned earlier, this wasn't even a result of overbooking, it was because United decided at the last minute that they needed to move 4 employees to another airport.  Ever heard the phrase "bad planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part"? 

This probably wasn't even a result of planning, bad or otherwise. If you like crisis management and are good at it, airline crew scheduler could be a good career choice for you. Not the customers problem though.

[GostHacked]

On 4/12/2017 at 9:06 PM, hernanday said:

It matters because it speaks to his behaviour and the felony he committed by refusing to leave a plane, which is a felony.  He did cause a disruption, not leaving is a disruption.  Running back on a plane after you were thrown off, that is a disruption.

The real issue is the airline over booking flights, which means someone is going to be bumped more than often. NO overbooking, no conflicts, no problem.  If they need to shuffle their staff around because of shortages, then they need to hire more crew to handle that (meaning some on standby). They can also have a small plane dedicated to flying staff to cities close by if they have a staff shortage.  That's a cost for them sure, but then they would never run into a situation like this.

 

This is a direct result of their overbooking practices, nothing more.

[Wilber]

Just now, GostHacked said:

The real issue is the airline over booking flights, which means someone is going to be bumped more than often. NO overbooking, no conflicts, no problem.  If they need to shuffle their staff around because of shortages, then they need to hire more crew to handle that (meaning some on standby). They can also have a small plane dedicated to flying staff to cities close by if they have a staff shortage.  That's a cost for them sure, but then they would never run into a situation like this.

 

This is a direct result of their overbooking practices, nothing more.

They have people on reserve but that doesn't mean they are going to be in every place they might need them. It's quite possible these people were reserves called out to do this flight because of a totally unrelated problem somewhere else entirely. No airline can have standby crews hanging around at every airport they go to for every type of aircraft they fly. Overbooking is an issue but the reason they had to bump people from this particular flight was not overbooking.

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

Yah,...unless we volunteer because they compensate us fairly.

That is different. If I accept the offer then no problem. If I decline the offer, there should still be NO PROBLEM.

[Bonam]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

I believe the cops should be called in when someone is breaking the law. If you want to sympathize with the criminal, by all means, do so. Just better hope it doesn't come around to bite you on the ass some day, like when you're waiting in traffic because half a dozen protestors are blocking the freeway for miles in all directions and the police don't dare try to drag them off.

Breaking the law? Criminal? 

Care to cite the relevant conviction? Not meekly complying with whatever some air line crony tells you to do is not a crime. 

[GostHacked]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

They have people on reserve but that doesn't mean they are going to be in every place they might need them. It's quite possible these people were reserves called out to do this flight because of a totally unrelated problem somewhere else entirely. No airline can have standby crews hanging around at every airport they go to for every type of aircraft they fly. Overbooking is an issue but the reason they had to bump people from this particular flight was not overbooking.

Reserve, stand-by passengers are different. They willingly risk the chance of not flying by going on Stand-By.  They are not guaranteed a flight at all. They are counting on someone not making their flight. Different situation. This guy was not flying stand-by.

Correct so this is not a case of overbooking, just kicking people off flights because of their staff situation. If this is more common than we think, then the airline really has a bigger issue here. Kicking paying passengers off to accommodate their staff because they don't have enough.  That is their problem not mine. 

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Guess he shoulda done what he was told then, huh.

Yes... anyone who dares not comply with any arbitrary command from their masters should be promptly beaten into submission. 

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Reserve, stand-by passengers are different. They willingly risk the chance of not flying by going on Stand-By.  They are not guaranteed a flight at all. They are counting on someone not making their flight. Different situation. This guy was not flying stand-by.

Correct so this is not a case of overbooking, just kicking people off flights because of their staff situation. If this is more common than we think, then the airline really has a bigger issue here. Kicking paying passengers off to accommodate their staff because they don't have enough.  That is their problem not mine. 

 

 

Reserves are crew members who don't fly a fixed schedule but are on call to fill in for sick crew members or cover flights for any number of reasons. The do not fly standby if they are going to work because if they don't get to work, there will be an aircraft full of people sitting there with no one to fly it. 

I'm well aware of how the standby system works. 

I'm not justifying what United did to that passenger, nor am I trying to make a case for overbooking.  I am saying don't jump to conclusions about why the airline had to bump those passengers to put that crew on board, because you clearly don't understand how airlines have to crew their aircraft.

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-04-12 at 1:20 PM, DogOnPorch said:

All of these things do not matter.

Latest trend: Airplane! = United Airlines training film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVQcXR2HVhw

 

Watched this on TV today. Coincidence? I think not

[Wilber]

Among airline people, the best airline movie ever made. 

[Bonam]

22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 

 

Reserves are crew members who don't fly a fixed schedule but are on call to fill in for sick crew members or cover flights for any number of reasons. The do not fly standby if they are going to work because if they don't get to work, there will be an aircraft full of people sitting there with no one to fly it. 

I'm well aware of how the standby system works. 

I'm not justifying what United did to that passenger, nor am I trying to make a case for overbooking.  I am saying don't jump to conclusions about why the airline had to bump those passengers to put that crew on board, because you clearly don't understand how airlines have to crew their aircraft.

Sorry, it's the airline's own problem. If they need to get crew somewhere and they don't have space on one of their commercial flights, they can arrange for a private flight. Kicking off paid passengers to compensate for poor business planning is not acceptable. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Bonam

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Sorry, it's the airline's own problem. If they need to get crew somewhere and they don't have space on one of their commercial flights, they can arrange for a private flight. Kicking off paid passengers to compensate for poor business planning is not acceptable. 

Airlines are subject to things that are out of their control, weather being the big one. Bad weather or other delays affecting flights in one place, can have an impact that cascades all through the system. It amazes me that people looking for the cheapest seat they can get, also expect aircraft and crews to be sitting around everywhere, just in case. The going rate for a new B737 ranges from 80 million to 116 million USD. B777's from 280 million to 400 million and B787's can run over 300 million.That's just the aircraft, not what it costs to operate them or run the rest of the airline.  Those machines have to generate a ton of revenue to pay for themselves and the airline, they can't be sitting around, just in case.

 

I agree they shouldn't be "kicking" passengers off. If the airplane is full and they need a seat, make an offer one of those people can't refuse. There are over a hundred people sitting there and not all of them have to be somewhere. One of them will take it.

[Bonam]

Just now, Wilber said:

I agree they shouldn't be "kicking" passengers off. If the airplane is full and they need a seat, make an offer one of those people can't refuse. There are over a hundred people sitting there and not all of them have to be somewhere. One of them will take it.

We're all agreed that they could have and should have increased the cash offer to the point that someone would take it rather than forcibly removing someone. They didn't. 

Quote

Airlines are subject to things that are out of their control, weather being the big one. Bad weather or other delays affecting flights in one place, can have an impact that cascades all through the system.

Bad weather has been around since we first started flying (and long before). It should hardly be catching airlines by surprise. An airline being caught off guard by bad weather is like a taxi driver being caught off guard by heavy traffic during rush hour. It says nothing about anyone or anything else except their own incompetence and bad planning. 

[Wilber]

Just now, Bonam said:

We're all agreed that they could have and should have increased the cash offer to the point that someone would take it rather than forcibly removing someone. They didn't. 

 

Sure, I have said that several times both on this thread, others and status updates.

 

Quote

Bad weather has been around since we first started flying (and long before). It should hardly be catching airlines by surprise. An airline being caught off guard by bad weather is like a taxi driver being caught off guard by heavy traffic during rush hour. It says nothing about anyone or anything else except their own incompetence and bad planning. 

Well the next time you can't get to work or somewhere else because of a blizzard, get your ass in there anyway.

[Bonam]

Just now, Wilber said:

Well the next time you can't get to work or somewhere else because of a blizzard, get your ass in there anyway.

Been there, done that. 

[Wilber]

Just now, Bonam said:

Been there, done that. 

Bet you were on time to.

Airlines fly in crap weather all the time to but somethings aren't possible. Also, they are subject to rules, they aren't allow to take the same risks with your life as you might chose to do yourself.

[Bonam]

Just now, Wilber said:

Bet you were on time to.

Airlines fly in crap weather all the time to but somethings aren't possible. Also, they are subject to rules, they aren't allow to take the same risks with your life as you might chose to do yourself.

Which is why they should have plans in place to deal with extremely routine circumstances like "bad weather" besides "we'll just punch these f***kers in the face until they get off the plane". 

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Which is why they should have plans in place to deal with extremely routine circumstances like "bad weather" besides "we'll just punch these f***kers in the face until they get off the plane". 

What plans? If an airport gets shut down by weather, nothing gets in or out. If aircraft have to wait for deicing and runways to be cleared, they wait. If they have to wait until a thunderstorm has gone, they wait. And everything down the system that those aircraft and crews were scheduled to do is affected.

 

Don't be an idiot, we've already agreed on alternatives to punching these f***kers in the face until they get off the plane.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

What plans? If an airport gets shut down by weather, nothing gets in or out. If aircraft have to wait for deicing and runways to be cleared, they wait. If they have to wait until a thunderstorm has gone, they wait. And everything down the system that those aircraft and crews were scheduled to do is affected.

If an airport is shut down or some other similarly extreme event happens that's a whole other issue. That didn't happen here. This was just dumb-ass corporate laziness and poor planning and the idea that they should break someone's face to compensate for said poor planning. 

Quote

Don't be an idiot, we've already agreed on alternatives to punching these f***kers in the face until they get off the plane.

We may have, but prior to this incident United apparently hadn't. Which is kind of the point. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Bonam

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

If an airport is shut down or some other similarly extreme event happens that's a whole other issue. That didn't happen here. This was just dumb-ass corporate laziness and poor planning. 

 

The point is, we don't know the reason. Well at least I don't but you have made up your mind. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Wilber
sp

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

Breaking the law? Criminal? 

Care to cite the relevant conviction? Not meekly complying with whatever some air line crony tells you to do is not a crime. 

Actually, it pretty much is. Just about any act of disruption about an airliner is a crime.

This list is by no means exhaustive. As a general rule of thumb, if the conduct is offensive or disruptive and distracts the crew, it may be considered actionable interference. The repercussions for passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be substantial, so if an attendant instructs you to do something, you'd best listen up. Otherwise, your next destination could potentially be a jail cell, a courtroom, or the office of an experienced criminal defense lawyer near you.

 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/11/what-happens-if-you-disobey-a-flight-attendant.html

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Argus