8 ms·

United's CEO didn't apologize http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disruptive-belligerent.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passeng

United's CEO didn't apologize http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disruptive-belligerent.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disrupti...

Bahamut 10y ago
The CEO backtracked on that today after seeing the stock plunge: http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755 http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755
throwaway91111 10y ago
He apologized today calling it "truly horrific".
FabHK 10y ago
He shouldn't have apologised (the immature belligerent dude on the plane should). However, he has apologised now, bowing to the relentless social media pressure, which appears to come mostly from people that don't know much about aviation law, airline operation, or anything related to this incident, from what I can see. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-airlines-ceo-apology-us_us_58ed299ce4b0c89f9122368e http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-airlines-ceo-apol...
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  I'm curious: what makes you believe that the man was "immature" and "belligerent"? Eyewitness accounts and videos seem to imply that he was not, and as more facts have come out, I'm becoming more and more convinced that what United did may was a violation of their own policies, and perhaps the law.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    1. Thanks for engaging, rather than down voting. 2. It is, indeed, hard to judge without having established the facts. But resisting a captain's (or, by extension, flight crew's) order, or the orders of the owner of the airplane, is in itself illegal and, frankly, immature. Running onto the plane again after having been "dragged off" and muttering "Just kill me" seems to point to possible mental issues, but again, it's hard to tell without further information. More measured pieces, such as this one [1], state "It appears from the evidence that the law was broken – by him, not by the airline." [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-video-overbooking-chicago-louisville-security-passenger-denied-boarding-a7677601.html http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-a...
    - bdhe 10y ago
      > Running onto the plane again after having been "dragged off" and muttering "Just kill me" seems to point to possible mental issues, You realize this could be because of the concussion he might have suffered earlier, don't you? Rather cruel thing to throw out there as an accusation after reviewing the video of the incident.
      - FabHK 10y ago
        Could be, yes. But again, the whole thing would not have happened if he had just disembarked as told.
        coralreef 10y ago
        Haha. And everyone who ever got their ass beat by the police should have just did as they were told. Even if they were in the legal right, or racially profiled, or whatever.
        FabHK 10y ago
        But the crew was legally right. And at any rate, the airplane is not the place to have that dispute, legal or otherwise - you follow the captain's (and by extension, crew's) orders, and then you review it later.
        coralreef 10y ago
        The crew was legally right only inasmuch so as the captain can order anyone off his/her plane, legally. If you're brown and a passenger doesn't like you, they can report you to the crew with some trumped up reason and the captain will order you off (which has happened). What's your legal recourse? None.
        gus_massa 10y ago
        In a similar situation, if someone is pointing at you with a gun in a dark alley and ask nicely for you wallet, then the more sensible reaction is to give your wallet. Sometimes it's not the same sensible, legal and right.
- jdcarr 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence that the passenger was immature or belligerent beyond the United CEO initially claiming so? And I don't see how you can wave away the incident just by claiming the actions were justified because of aviation law or how United runs.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    No, no evidence beyond what the United CEO said, plus the fact that he did not disembark when asked to. (That in itself is some immaturity. I'm all for political action and power to the citizen and consumers and so forth, but I don't fight that fight while in some country's immigration and customs queue, or with the crew of an aircraft while in the aircraft.)
    - doktrin 10y ago
      immature != wrong legal != right Most people would not defy authority, but that doesn't mean that authority is in the right. Whether or not United technically acted in accordance with the law does also does not mean they are in the right. Where and when you personally would (or would not) choose to defy authority is also not a reliable barometer of whether that authority is worthy of defiance. This was a logistical problem that resulted from United's own negligence. The personality traits that the passenger displayed after being lottery-selected for ejection are immaterial : the airline screwed up, the airline treated its customers like shit, the airline refused to provide suitable incentives, the airline refused to address the problem in a reasonable manner, and finally the airline went straight for the nuclear option. It was a colossal failure from start to finish, and the fault lies entirely with them.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093309
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Interesting. I am not convinced that 91.3 and 91.11 CFR 14 (authority of the pilot in command, no interference with crew members) is suspended once the airplane is stationary on the ground, but at least it's a somewhat informed argument (which, as I've said, is very rare in the whole media bedlam). There is the question as to when something counts as an aviation accident (because you do not want something to count as an aviation accident when the cockpit window cleaner falls of the ladder, but you do want to count something as an aviation accident when, say, something happens during taxi - even if you're not flying yet. But where do you draw the line?) So, ICAO defines an accident to be "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked" and fulfilling various further criteria. So, according to that definition the airplane was "in operation".
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Legal hair splitting aside: there is a line that a company can not and should not cross, which is to alienate its paying customers. Once you pass that point it stops to matter whether or not you were legally in your right, you've lost in the one court that matters: the court of commerce. If customers can no longer trust you to treat them with even the lowest degree of respect (and bodily integrity, already a sore point with air travelers is undeniably a part of that) then you're in trouble. Witness the stock markets response today, no amount of legal wrangling will make that kind of beating right, besides the obvious ethical angles. UA failed, then failed again during their initial apology and now may be able to put this behind them but it will be a very costly lesson.
      - FabHK 10y ago
        1. Paradoxically, I'm not sure they'll have significant commercial losses. Discriminating flyers weren't flying United before, I'd think, and most of those screaming now might well book United a week hence if it's $3.50 cheaper than the alternatives. 2. Companies (or any entity, really) should resist attempts to circumvent rules by cheating, e.g. by throwing a tantrum at the check-in counter when you don't get an upgrade. So, when the Involuntary Denied Boarding lottery comes up, and you don't get a seat, do you think it would be ok to force your way onto the plane and refuse to get off, in the hope that they might chose someone else? If not, how would you deal with such a case?
- stordoff 10y ago
  Regardless of legality, or if the passenger's response was warranted or not, he should have apologised IMO. A paying passenger was unwillingly removed from a flight to make room for employees. I think most people in that situation would be rather angry with the company.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    He should apologise for thwarting someone's travel plans, that's true. It happens - aviation is complicated, sometimes planes are overbooked, sometimes not all seats are available. Then passengers are IDB and get the legal compensation (and frequently more). And the CEO's initial (and much ridiculed) reference to re-accommodation was an apology for that, wasn't it? The fact that the passenger had to be dragged out was due to the passenger, though.

United's CEO didn't apologize http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disruptive-belligerent.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disrupti...

Bahamut 10y ago

The CEO backtracked on that today after seeing the stock plunge: http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755 http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755

throwaway91111 10y ago

He apologized today calling it "truly horrific".

FabHK 10y ago

He shouldn't have apologised (the immature belligerent dude on the plane should). However, he has apologised now, bowing to the relentless social media pressure, which appears to come mostly from people that don't know much about aviation law, airline operation, or anything related to this incident, from what I can see. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-airlines-ceo-apology-us_us_58ed299ce4b0c89f9122368e http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-airlines-ceo-apol...

joshuamorton 10y ago
I'm curious: what makes you believe that the man was "immature" and "belligerent"? Eyewitness accounts and videos seem to imply that he was not, and as more facts have come out, I'm becoming more and more convinced that what United did may was a violation of their own policies, and perhaps the law.
- FabHK 10y ago
  1. Thanks for engaging, rather than down voting. 2. It is, indeed, hard to judge without having established the facts. But resisting a captain's (or, by extension, flight crew's) order, or the orders of the owner of the airplane, is in itself illegal and, frankly, immature. Running onto the plane again after having been "dragged off" and muttering "Just kill me" seems to point to possible mental issues, but again, it's hard to tell without further information. More measured pieces, such as this one [1], state "It appears from the evidence that the law was broken – by him, not by the airline." [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-video-overbooking-chicago-louisville-security-passenger-denied-boarding-a7677601.html http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-a...
  - bdhe 10y ago
    > Running onto the plane again after having been "dragged off" and muttering "Just kill me" seems to point to possible mental issues, You realize this could be because of the concussion he might have suffered earlier, don't you? Rather cruel thing to throw out there as an accusation after reviewing the video of the incident.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Could be, yes. But again, the whole thing would not have happened if he had just disembarked as told.
      - coralreef 10y ago
        Haha. And everyone who ever got their ass beat by the police should have just did as they were told. Even if they were in the legal right, or racially profiled, or whatever.
        FabHK 10y ago
        But the crew was legally right. And at any rate, the airplane is not the place to have that dispute, legal or otherwise - you follow the captain's (and by extension, crew's) orders, and then you review it later.
        coralreef 10y ago
        The crew was legally right only inasmuch so as the captain can order anyone off his/her plane, legally. If you're brown and a passenger doesn't like you, they can report you to the crew with some trumped up reason and the captain will order you off (which has happened). What's your legal recourse? None.
      - gus_massa 10y ago
        In a similar situation, if someone is pointing at you with a gun in a dark alley and ask nicely for you wallet, then the more sensible reaction is to give your wallet. Sometimes it's not the same sensible, legal and right.
jdcarr 10y ago
Do you have any evidence that the passenger was immature or belligerent beyond the United CEO initially claiming so? And I don't see how you can wave away the incident just by claiming the actions were justified because of aviation law or how United runs.
- FabHK 10y ago
  No, no evidence beyond what the United CEO said, plus the fact that he did not disembark when asked to. (That in itself is some immaturity. I'm all for political action and power to the citizen and consumers and so forth, but I don't fight that fight while in some country's immigration and customs queue, or with the crew of an aircraft while in the aircraft.)
  - doktrin 10y ago
    immature != wrong legal != right Most people would not defy authority, but that doesn't mean that authority is in the right. Whether or not United technically acted in accordance with the law does also does not mean they are in the right. Where and when you personally would (or would not) choose to defy authority is also not a reliable barometer of whether that authority is worthy of defiance. This was a logistical problem that resulted from United's own negligence. The personality traits that the passenger displayed after being lottery-selected for ejection are immaterial : the airline screwed up, the airline treated its customers like shit, the airline refused to provide suitable incentives, the airline refused to address the problem in a reasonable manner, and finally the airline went straight for the nuclear option. It was a colossal failure from start to finish, and the fault lies entirely with them.
jacquesm 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14093309
- FabHK 10y ago
  Interesting. I am not convinced that 91.3 and 91.11 CFR 14 (authority of the pilot in command, no interference with crew members) is suspended once the airplane is stationary on the ground, but at least it's a somewhat informed argument (which, as I've said, is very rare in the whole media bedlam). There is the question as to when something counts as an aviation accident (because you do not want something to count as an aviation accident when the cockpit window cleaner falls of the ladder, but you do want to count something as an aviation accident when, say, something happens during taxi - even if you're not flying yet. But where do you draw the line?) So, ICAO defines an accident to be "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked" and fulfilling various further criteria. So, according to that definition the airplane was "in operation".
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Legal hair splitting aside: there is a line that a company can not and should not cross, which is to alienate its paying customers. Once you pass that point it stops to matter whether or not you were legally in your right, you've lost in the one court that matters: the court of commerce. If customers can no longer trust you to treat them with even the lowest degree of respect (and bodily integrity, already a sore point with air travelers is undeniably a part of that) then you're in trouble. Witness the stock markets response today, no amount of legal wrangling will make that kind of beating right, besides the obvious ethical angles. UA failed, then failed again during their initial apology and now may be able to put this behind them but it will be a very costly lesson.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      1. Paradoxically, I'm not sure they'll have significant commercial losses. Discriminating flyers weren't flying United before, I'd think, and most of those screaming now might well book United a week hence if it's $3.50 cheaper than the alternatives. 2. Companies (or any entity, really) should resist attempts to circumvent rules by cheating, e.g. by throwing a tantrum at the check-in counter when you don't get an upgrade. So, when the Involuntary Denied Boarding lottery comes up, and you don't get a seat, do you think it would be ok to force your way onto the plane and refuse to get off, in the hope that they might chose someone else? If not, how would you deal with such a case?
stordoff 10y ago
Regardless of legality, or if the passenger's response was warranted or not, he should have apologised IMO. A paying passenger was unwillingly removed from a flight to make room for employees. I think most people in that situation would be rather angry with the company.
- FabHK 10y ago
  He should apologise for thwarting someone's travel plans, that's true. It happens - aviation is complicated, sometimes planes are overbooked, sometimes not all seats are available. Then passengers are IDB and get the legal compensation (and frequently more). And the CEO's initial (and much ridiculed) reference to re-accommodation was an apology for that, wasn't it? The fact that the passenger had to be dragged out was due to the passenger, though.