6 ms·

I feel the current system of overbooking and how it is "regulated" is backwards, and airlines should rethink. Perhaps they could do some sort of an auction with

I feel the current system of overbooking and how it is "regulated" is backwards, and airlines should rethink. Perhaps they could do some sort of an auction without a maximum. It is their problem after all, and a market mechanism seems a reasonable way to deal with this. Sometimes this would mean someone who does not care as much will gladly take $150 as compensation. Other cases might lead to much higher numbers. The next bit will probably not make me particularly popular, seeing most of the reactions to this debacle, but here goes. The airplane itself is not a suitable place for any form of protest. No ifs, buts or anything else. Once the flight personnel asks you to leave the airplane, you leave. Take the fight outside of the airplane, in court or wherever or however you deem appropriate. But not on the plane. Your work/patients/personal tragedy is in no way relevant. If you disagree with the service offered, don't use it. Vote with your feet and your wallet. Don't claim you have no alternatives or whatever. Society does not owe you your preferred lifestyle in any way. If this guy refused to leave after he was asked to do so, according to the rules het agreed by upon entering an agreement, and I would be delayed by the ensuing situation, I would even consider pursuing some form of legal action towards him. Having said all that, I do feel the way commercial air travel is organised these days is beyond ridiculous. I therefore avoid it whenever and however I can. If more people did that, it would have changed by now. People don't, so it doesn't. Because most just feel entitled to whatever they feel entitled to, without any basis. Fuck them. Oh, and screw airlines too.

tabeth 10y ago
I completely disagree with your advice. If you truly care about something you should protest against it immediately.
- mvdwoord 10y ago
  That IS my advice.. immediately stop using their services. It will come at a cost of convenience to yourself of course.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  In spirit, to protest the injustice as it happens seems right. However in a world of laws, it is seldom the effective or meaningful action. I would have full knowledge that a lawyer would sort this, and keep my cool, not that you should have to. The real advice here is to vote with your dollar.
tsunamifury 10y ago
The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending their staff on another flight. This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their monetary needs. Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary force.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit. Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera." This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt. So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
    - 10y ago
hedora 10y ago
I disagree about airplane / airport protests. First, air travel is increasingly a prerequisite to meaningful participation in the modern economy. That means it should be treated as a right, not a privilege. Second, most of the encounters people have with institutionalized racism and arbitrary violations of civil rights involve air travel. The unconstitutional "constitution-free" zones are exactly the place protests should occur. The current situation is akin to "blacks sit in back" of buses in the US. It is better in some ways better, and worse in others. The mix of victims skews to different socioeconomic groups (muslims, middle-lower class) than the old Jim Crow laws (and it is easier to avoid the airport than public roadways) but that doesn't make the current situation OK. Anyway, history has decided Rosa Parks was a hero. I think it will eventually make the same call with respect to air travel.
BlackFly 10y ago
1. The flight was not overbooked, they wanted to eject holders of confirmed reserved seats in favor of their own employees in contravention of 14 CFR 250.2a. 2. Overbooking rules can only be used to deny boarding. The passenger had already boarded. 3. United's own Contract of Carriage enumerates for "Refusal of Transport" in rule 21. None of the rules apply. What United did was illegal, plain and simple. They may have made false statements to authorities to get him ejected as well.
- valuearb 10y ago
  I'm sure some lawyer will try to go down this path for the alleged physician. But the reality is the flight crew has the right to kick anyone off the plane, and they need to have that right.
  - phonon 10y ago
    Not true. UA has a Contract of Carriage that specifically enumerates the possible reasons they can use to deny boarding or remove someone from a flight. There is no "catch-all" in it. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
    - valuearb 10y ago
      "Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions"
      - Oletros 10y ago
        > Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported. I think that this case was about "acts of God" because I don't find any other reason to be force majeure.
      - 10y ago
revscat 10y ago
In this case, though, the flight was not overbooked. They forcibly removed an otherwise compliant passenger so that their own employees could get a ride.

tabeth 10y ago

I completely disagree with your advice. If you truly care about something you should protest against it immediately.

mvdwoord 10y ago
That IS my advice.. immediately stop using their services. It will come at a cost of convenience to yourself of course.
Neliquat 10y ago
In spirit, to protest the injustice as it happens seems right. However in a world of laws, it is seldom the effective or meaningful action. I would have full knowledge that a lawyer would sort this, and keep my cool, not that you should have to. The real advice here is to vote with your dollar.

tsunamifury 10y ago

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending their staff on another flight. This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their monetary needs. Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary force.

M_Grey 10y ago
That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit. Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera." This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt. So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
  - 10y ago

hedora 10y ago

I disagree about airplane / airport protests. First, air travel is increasingly a prerequisite to meaningful participation in the modern economy. That means it should be treated as a right, not a privilege. Second, most of the encounters people have with institutionalized racism and arbitrary violations of civil rights involve air travel. The unconstitutional "constitution-free" zones are exactly the place protests should occur. The current situation is akin to "blacks sit in back" of buses in the US. It is better in some ways better, and worse in others. The mix of victims skews to different socioeconomic groups (muslims, middle-lower class) than the old Jim Crow laws (and it is easier to avoid the airport than public roadways) but that doesn't make the current situation OK. Anyway, history has decided Rosa Parks was a hero. I think it will eventually make the same call with respect to air travel.

BlackFly 10y ago

1. The flight was not overbooked, they wanted to eject holders of confirmed reserved seats in favor of their own employees in contravention of 14 CFR 250.2a. 2. Overbooking rules can only be used to deny boarding. The passenger had already boarded. 3. United's own Contract of Carriage enumerates for "Refusal of Transport" in rule 21. None of the rules apply. What United did was illegal, plain and simple. They may have made false statements to authorities to get him ejected as well.

valuearb 10y ago
I'm sure some lawyer will try to go down this path for the alleged physician. But the reality is the flight crew has the right to kick anyone off the plane, and they need to have that right.
- phonon 10y ago
  Not true. UA has a Contract of Carriage that specifically enumerates the possible reasons they can use to deny boarding or remove someone from a flight. There is no "catch-all" in it. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
  - valuearb 10y ago
    "Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions"
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported. I think that this case was about "acts of God" because I don't find any other reason to be force majeure.
    - 10y ago

revscat 10y ago

In this case, though, the flight was not overbooked. They forcibly removed an otherwise compliant passenger so that their own employees could get a ride.