4 ms·

Is anyone else disappointed with the PR turn around? Although unlikely, I was rooting for United to push back and tell the guy to piss off for acting so ignoran

Is anyone else disappointed with the PR turn around? Although unlikely, I was rooting for United to push back and tell the guy to piss off for acting so ignorant. I cannot imagine how mad I would be if I was asked to leave after getting on the plane but once the authorities get involved anyone beyond 10 years old should know it isn't time for a temper tantrum. Kudos for United for improving customer experience but I wish this improvement would come whole heartedly and not simply because of a PR nightmare due to an ignorant passenger.

draw_down 10y ago
Uh, no.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ArchReaper 10y ago
How's the Kool Aid taste?
xyzzy4 10y ago
>I would be if I was asked to leave after getting on the plane but once the authorities get involved anyone beyond 10 years old should know it isn't time for a temper tantrum. So it's fine for police to beat up non-threatening people when they don't comply with a business manager's decision?
AlexandrB 10y ago
I agree. We should all kowtow to our corporate overlords, after all we are mere "consumers" not people and we don't deserve any respect.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
He was literally on the phone to United's call center when the cop pulled him forward while still belted, then sideways into the middle armrest, then mashed his head into the armrest across the aisle causing concussion, broken Nose, and lost teeth. The guy literally had to have reconstructive surgery. Calling United's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum." It is the correct course of action in the circumstances. A United Manager should have resolved this situation, not an abusive cop. United should pay for it and the cop should be fired and charged with battery. The passenger did nothing ignorant, and I'm not entirely sure you know what the word means.
- rl3 10y ago
  >Calling United's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum." It is the correct course of action in the circumstances. So disobeying flight crew instructions, then law enforcement instructions, and finally insisting on working your way through first-line support at the company's call center while you single-handedly continue to delay an entire flight is the correct course of action in that situation? The way cops handled the situation was absolutely awful, and in my opinion they should be footing his medical bills. However, it doesn't mean he was justified in his actions. Such actions could even be perfectly understandable in circumstances involving an underlying medical condition (dementia, mental illness, severe hypoglycemia, whatever). How you can suggest it's the correct course of action for someone of sound mind though is puzzling at best. I can't even begin to comprehend the level of entitlement that delaying an entire flight would require.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, the company and law enforcement violated those rights and the other passengers were negatively impacted due to the company's wish to save a small amount of money.
    - rl3 10y ago
      >United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I'm fairly confident the interaction didn't go down as: "Hello, we have an uncompliant passenger refusing to leave the aircraft at gate XYZ. Please come down and beat the shit out of him for us, thanks!" >Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. Ignoring the continued hyperbole, the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft. >There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. There was once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew. Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses. >The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). Yes, but his actions then delayed the flight much more than it otherwise would have been. A minor delay due to crew positioning is a small price to pay if it means not having to cancel an entire flight of passengers down line. >The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, ... Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.
yourapostasy 10y ago
We do not know enough about the interaction between Dr. Dao and the Chicago Aviation Department security officers to tell if the escalation to violence was reasonably graduated or not. There are accepted general practices for such escalation, and a common one is the command voice, for example. There is no way now to discover if policy and common practice was applied by the officers on the scene, unfortunately.

draw_down 10y ago

Uh, no.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ArchReaper 10y ago

How's the Kool Aid taste?

xyzzy4 10y ago

>I would be if I was asked to leave after getting on the plane but once the authorities get involved anyone beyond 10 years old should know it isn't time for a temper tantrum. So it's fine for police to beat up non-threatening people when they don't comply with a business manager's decision?

AlexandrB 10y ago

I agree. We should all kowtow to our corporate overlords, after all we are mere "consumers" not people and we don't deserve any respect.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

He was literally on the phone to United's call center when the cop pulled him forward while still belted, then sideways into the middle armrest, then mashed his head into the armrest across the aisle causing concussion, broken Nose, and lost teeth. The guy literally had to have reconstructive surgery. Calling United's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum." It is the correct course of action in the circumstances. A United Manager should have resolved this situation, not an abusive cop. United should pay for it and the cop should be fired and charged with battery. The passenger did nothing ignorant, and I'm not entirely sure you know what the word means.

rl3 10y ago
>Calling United's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum." It is the correct course of action in the circumstances. So disobeying flight crew instructions, then law enforcement instructions, and finally insisting on working your way through first-line support at the company's call center while you single-handedly continue to delay an entire flight is the correct course of action in that situation? The way cops handled the situation was absolutely awful, and in my opinion they should be footing his medical bills. However, it doesn't mean he was justified in his actions. Such actions could even be perfectly understandable in circumstances involving an underlying medical condition (dementia, mental illness, severe hypoglycemia, whatever). How you can suggest it's the correct course of action for someone of sound mind though is puzzling at best. I can't even begin to comprehend the level of entitlement that delaying an entire flight would require.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, the company and law enforcement violated those rights and the other passengers were negatively impacted due to the company's wish to save a small amount of money.
  - rl3 10y ago
    >United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I'm fairly confident the interaction didn't go down as: "Hello, we have an uncompliant passenger refusing to leave the aircraft at gate XYZ. Please come down and beat the shit out of him for us, thanks!" >Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. Ignoring the continued hyperbole, the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft. >There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. There was once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew. Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses. >The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). Yes, but his actions then delayed the flight much more than it otherwise would have been. A minor delay due to crew positioning is a small price to pay if it means not having to cancel an entire flight of passengers down line. >The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, ... Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.

yourapostasy 10y ago

We do not know enough about the interaction between Dr. Dao and the Chicago Aviation Department security officers to tell if the escalation to violence was reasonably graduated or not. There are accepted general practices for such escalation, and a common one is the command voice, for example. There is no way now to discover if policy and common practice was applied by the officers on the scene, unfortunately.