4 ms·

That wasn't the topic. I don't know or care enough about the reason for asking him to vacate his seat, but that is still a request that must be followed.

FredPret 5y ago
What utter non-logic
qaq 5y ago
Given the multi-million dollar settlement I am guessing things might not be as simple
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  People can sue for whatever they want, and settlements from large juries are always a risk assessment, not an admission of wrongdoing.
  - qaq 5y ago
    A language that puts some conditions in some contract does not mean it can not be successfully challenged in court.
  - opo 5y ago
    >...not an admission of wrongdoing. The admission of wrongdoing came from the CEO: >...Two days after the incident, Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft. He said, "No one should ever be mistreated this way." In an ABC television interview, Munoz was asked, "Do you think [Dao] was at fault in any way?" Munoz responded, "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...
- kelnos 5y ago
  Given that United wasn't the one who dragged him out of his seat and beat him (that was airport security), it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that United should have been liable for this. Most likely United just wanted the lawsuit out of the news, so millions of dollars was cheaper for them than the lost goodwill -- even if they would have ended up winning the suit.
  - qaq 5y ago
    Or they were afraid it would set a precedent that puts this practice into question
  - feupan 5y ago
    Weird, I didn't know the airport security had any saying in bookings, it's almost like a United staff asked them to take care of an "unruly" passenger. Airport security might have followed orders but those orders couldn't have come by anyone but United.
dotnet00 5y ago
That's useless reasoning that can be used to justify any action as long as it's an authority acting on someone 'lesser'. Kind of exactly the issue being discussed here. An airline managed shared no-fly list would only reinforce this broken reasoning. "I don't know or care enough about the reason for arresting him, but that is still a procedure that must be followed." "I don't know or care enough about the reason for preventing him from flying, but that is still a procedure that must be followed." and so on. The reason matters because it determines if the procedure/request is ethical. An unethical procedure shouldn't be allowed to keep existing just because it already exists.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  It's like asking someone to leave your house - there doesn't have to be a good reason, an ethical reason, or any reason at all. Generally if someone asks you to leave their property, then you get up and leave. If this creates a breach of contract or other civil dispute, that's exactly what civil courts are for, go use them.
  - ww520 5y ago
    You cannot ask a paying tenant to leave your house.
  - dotnet00 5y ago
    You say that, yet we all know that the change making what happened a violation of DoT rules wouldn't have happened if it weren't for this incident having caused worldwide outrage. Refusing to leave is exactly what caused the problem to be fixed, taking it to courts would do little more than get the man a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      I would hold that the change to DoT rules was fundamentally reactionary, unwarranted, and not rooted in any sort of reasoned argument. The rules change seems to be based in the idea that we simply can't expect people to contain their emotions when they are asked to leave a plane they have already been seated on. I think we should maintain this expectation, and more generally maintain the expectation that people control their emotions and remain calm and reasonable in day-to-day interactions. This would all have been avoided if the fellow just got up and left, as he was told, and as the airline staff were entitled to tell him. Also, a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation is all the fellow is entitled to in this situation.
poulsbohemian 5y ago
- missedthecue 5y ago
  The kind of arrogance you’ve displayed through this whole thread is why we have post like a few days ago about how HN has become such a vile place lacking civil discourse. Go read the fucking story and then see if you sit there so smugly behind your keyboard advocating violence against passengers Do you hear yourself speak
  - poulsbohemian 5y ago
    Yes I do - several posters attempted to offer new evidence to the gentleman and he doubled-down on his argument rather than acknowledge new information. His argument fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable despite his acknowledgement that he didn’t actually have any background into the story.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      I already said that the reason for the ticket cancellation and request to leave are separate issues. New information about the former doesn't change the latter. And none of this necessitated your extremely rude response. > "fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable" Fundamentally all authority is based on violence. Actions create consequences and force is the last resolution available. It may be excessive, harmful, destructive, chaotic, and all manner of similar adjectives but it doesn't change the fact that violence is a core component of society and used to enforce all the civility you've come to expect.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      My comment was not whether your rebuke was justified or not, but about your tone. Right after you lament that HN is becoming uncivil you swear and shout pejoratives.
- tc313 5y ago
  An important element of civil discourse is in limiting conversation to the content of the argument rather than attacking the person making the argument.

FredPret 5y ago

What utter non-logic

qaq 5y ago

Given the multi-million dollar settlement I am guessing things might not be as simple

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
People can sue for whatever they want, and settlements from large juries are always a risk assessment, not an admission of wrongdoing.
- qaq 5y ago
  A language that puts some conditions in some contract does not mean it can not be successfully challenged in court.
- opo 5y ago
  >...not an admission of wrongdoing. The admission of wrongdoing came from the CEO: >...Two days after the incident, Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft. He said, "No one should ever be mistreated this way." In an ABC television interview, Munoz was asked, "Do you think [Dao] was at fault in any way?" Munoz responded, "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...
kelnos 5y ago
Given that United wasn't the one who dragged him out of his seat and beat him (that was airport security), it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that United should have been liable for this. Most likely United just wanted the lawsuit out of the news, so millions of dollars was cheaper for them than the lost goodwill -- even if they would have ended up winning the suit.
- qaq 5y ago
  Or they were afraid it would set a precedent that puts this practice into question
- feupan 5y ago
  Weird, I didn't know the airport security had any saying in bookings, it's almost like a United staff asked them to take care of an "unruly" passenger. Airport security might have followed orders but those orders couldn't have come by anyone but United.

dotnet00 5y ago

That's useless reasoning that can be used to justify any action as long as it's an authority acting on someone 'lesser'. Kind of exactly the issue being discussed here. An airline managed shared no-fly list would only reinforce this broken reasoning. "I don't know or care enough about the reason for arresting him, but that is still a procedure that must be followed." "I don't know or care enough about the reason for preventing him from flying, but that is still a procedure that must be followed." and so on. The reason matters because it determines if the procedure/request is ethical. An unethical procedure shouldn't be allowed to keep existing just because it already exists.

thegrimmest 5y ago
It's like asking someone to leave your house - there doesn't have to be a good reason, an ethical reason, or any reason at all. Generally if someone asks you to leave their property, then you get up and leave. If this creates a breach of contract or other civil dispute, that's exactly what civil courts are for, go use them.
- ww520 5y ago
  You cannot ask a paying tenant to leave your house.
- dotnet00 5y ago
  You say that, yet we all know that the change making what happened a violation of DoT rules wouldn't have happened if it weren't for this incident having caused worldwide outrage. Refusing to leave is exactly what caused the problem to be fixed, taking it to courts would do little more than get the man a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I would hold that the change to DoT rules was fundamentally reactionary, unwarranted, and not rooted in any sort of reasoned argument. The rules change seems to be based in the idea that we simply can't expect people to contain their emotions when they are asked to leave a plane they have already been seated on. I think we should maintain this expectation, and more generally maintain the expectation that people control their emotions and remain calm and reasonable in day-to-day interactions. This would all have been avoided if the fellow just got up and left, as he was told, and as the airline staff were entitled to tell him. Also, a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation is all the fellow is entitled to in this situation.

poulsbohemian 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago
The kind of arrogance you’ve displayed through this whole thread is why we have post like a few days ago about how HN has become such a vile place lacking civil discourse. Go read the fucking story and then see if you sit there so smugly behind your keyboard advocating violence against passengers Do you hear yourself speak
- poulsbohemian 5y ago
  Yes I do - several posters attempted to offer new evidence to the gentleman and he doubled-down on his argument rather than acknowledge new information. His argument fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable despite his acknowledgement that he didn’t actually have any background into the story.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    I already said that the reason for the ticket cancellation and request to leave are separate issues. New information about the former doesn't change the latter. And none of this necessitated your extremely rude response. > "fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable" Fundamentally all authority is based on violence. Actions create consequences and force is the last resolution available. It may be excessive, harmful, destructive, chaotic, and all manner of similar adjectives but it doesn't change the fact that violence is a core component of society and used to enforce all the civility you've come to expect.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    My comment was not whether your rebuke was justified or not, but about your tone. Right after you lament that HN is becoming uncivil you swear and shout pejoratives.
tc313 5y ago
An important element of civil discourse is in limiting conversation to the content of the argument rather than attacking the person making the argument.