3 ms·

According to witnesses, he said he was a doctor who had patients he had to see the following day, and there wasn't another flight to Louisville for 36 hours. Th

According to witnesses, he said he was a doctor who had patients he had to see the following day, and there wasn't another flight to Louisville for 36 hours. The crew is supposed to make an informed decision about these things, and clearly made a random and arbitrary choice and refused to back down. They may have been in the right legally, but certainly not morally.

FabHK 10y ago
The whole point was that the decision is random, in the name of justice. They have some criteria to exclude people from the bad lottery (disabled people and their care takers, unaccompanied minors), and then may apply a ranking based on booking class, frequent flyer status, and check-in time. But here, the claim is that pax were chosen randomly. Many people have good reasons to be on a plane, and this passenger being a doctor should not have any bearing on the resolution of the problem at hand (except insofar as it should've compelled other pax to take the 800 USD and hotel room and volunteer for disembarkation).
- gotothedoctor 10y ago
  Why shouldn't the passenger's role as a doctor have any bearing? If an airline must choose passengers to disembark, shouldn't doctors (& nurses) be the last people you'd remove?
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Because the check-in area or airplane is not the place to argue about the relative merits of different professions or importance of appointments. The airline has its criteria (which might include random choice) and is entitled to use them.
    - vacri 10y ago
      > and is entitled to use them. And we're entitled to roast them for doing so when we think they've done wrong.
    - gotothedoctor 10y ago
      Sure; debating is definitely a bad idea. Even if most of us think our needs (/convenience) is more important than everyone else, most of us also appreciate the role that doctors & nurses play. Plus, airlines have rules about literally everything-including wearing leggings. From both a business and a public safety perspective, it would hardly be shocking if an airline mandated that doctors and nurses should be either exempt from removal or the last to be removed. Not sure if you've ever been on a plane where someone has had a serious medical issue when there hasn't been a doctor or nurse on board, but its hardly uncommon. Having a doctor on board decreases risk for an airline--keeping doctors & nurses aboard certainly makes more senses than random choice does or choosing whomever paid the least.

FabHK 10y ago

The whole point was that the decision is random, in the name of justice. They have some criteria to exclude people from the bad lottery (disabled people and their care takers, unaccompanied minors), and then may apply a ranking based on booking class, frequent flyer status, and check-in time. But here, the claim is that pax were chosen randomly. Many people have good reasons to be on a plane, and this passenger being a doctor should not have any bearing on the resolution of the problem at hand (except insofar as it should've compelled other pax to take the 800 USD and hotel room and volunteer for disembarkation).

gotothedoctor 10y ago
Why shouldn't the passenger's role as a doctor have any bearing? If an airline must choose passengers to disembark, shouldn't doctors (& nurses) be the last people you'd remove?
- FabHK 10y ago
  Because the check-in area or airplane is not the place to argue about the relative merits of different professions or importance of appointments. The airline has its criteria (which might include random choice) and is entitled to use them.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > and is entitled to use them. And we're entitled to roast them for doing so when we think they've done wrong.
  - gotothedoctor 10y ago
    Sure; debating is definitely a bad idea. Even if most of us think our needs (/convenience) is more important than everyone else, most of us also appreciate the role that doctors & nurses play. Plus, airlines have rules about literally everything-including wearing leggings. From both a business and a public safety perspective, it would hardly be shocking if an airline mandated that doctors and nurses should be either exempt from removal or the last to be removed. Not sure if you've ever been on a plane where someone has had a serious medical issue when there hasn't been a doctor or nurse on board, but its hardly uncommon. Having a doctor on board decreases risk for an airline--keeping doctors & nurses aboard certainly makes more senses than random choice does or choosing whomever paid the least.