Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: United Airlines Debacle.....

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdale View Post
    No different than you kicking someone out of your car.

    You may have even agreed to take a guy down the road in exchange for money.

    But don't you think that you should have the right to end that deal, for whatever reason, and whatever time........ yeah, you might have to give a full refund, but why should you be on the hook for anything else......and then imagine the guy refuses to get out of your car?

    United may be a large corporation, but the principal is the same. Their plane, their rules, don't like it? Shop elsewhere. Isn't that the free market?
    Exactly. And instead of a refund, you offer a coupon worth a ride sometime in the next year, on the second Tuesday of months that have only 29 days in them.
    Good medicine in bad places

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdale View Post
    But this wasn't a case of overbooking

    They explained that they had to bump 4 passengers because they had to get a flight crew aboard so that they could crew another plane that was lacking a crew.

    United had to inconvenience 4 people on one flight or inconvenience 300 people on another flight.

    I still say they should have kept raising their price until they had 4 takers, then buy them first class on the next flight to their destination on any carrier, it may have cost them $20,000 total, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the bad PR of dragging people off your plane, even if you do have the right to do it.......Still a VERY bad business decision.
    It was another Republic flight, leaving the next day....so there was time for UAL to get another crew. and it was another 70 people max.

    Also, scheduling crew properly is a core responsibility of an airline. It's part of what the passengers pay for with their fare. UAL's incompetence and failures are not the passengers responsibility to fix.
    Good medicine in bad places

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
    Nope, and in this case you're not an azzhole either. A sworn LEO is a sworn LEO whether airport police, campus police at a college or university, or whatever. If they instruct one to do something it is one's best interest to comply. I'm with you 100% on this one, T. Guess that'll make me an azzhole too. Oh well, I've been called a lot worse.
    Apparently the Chicago Airport Police are not real cops - they don't have powers of arrest, for example.

    And cops should not be getting involved in civil contract disputes.
    Good medicine in bad places

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,197

    Default

    I still stand by my opinion that United had the right to have Dr. Dao removed from the airplane

    The plane is private property owned and operated by United, I think they should retain the absolute right to refuse service.

    I think Mike Rowe hits the nail on the head


    https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...586785/?type=3
    Off The Wall
    Donna Johnson writes...
    “I assume you’ve seen the United video. Were you as disturbed as I was? How can a company treat their customers like that and remain in business? I know you fly all the time – what would do if you were the CEO?”

    Hi Donna

    Like most people, I don’t enjoy seeing passengers dragged down the aisle of a commercial airplane, limp and lifeless. Nor do I enjoy seeing them hogtied at 37,000 feet, (which I’ve also had the occasion to witness – in person – and more than once.)

    These kinds of episodes are always disturbing, but what bothered me initially about this video was not just the violence, it was the obvious ease with which it could have been avoided. A little common-sense and the freedom to apply it could have resolved this situation in a dozen different ways. Last night however, I watched a tape of United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, as he attempted to walk back some earlier comments. He told ABC news that the passenger in question – David Dao - “did nothing wrong.”

    Now, I’m no longer disturbed, Donna. I’m merely terrified.

    Is Oscar serious? God, I hope not. I hope he’s just doing the typical “over-apology” thing CEO’s do when their “crisis experts” tell them they’ve got to say whatever it takes to win back the public trust. I hope he’s just reacting to some lawyer who told him before the interview, “for the love of God, Oscar, don’t blame the victim!” Well, Oscar certainly didn’t blame the victim. But in the process of finding him blameless, he suggested that millions of passengers are under no obligation to follow a direct command from United employees. And that’s a hell of a lot more disturbing than a beat-down in the main cabin.

    Here’s the thing. It’s easy to forget that we have no right to fly. Buying a ticket doesn’t change that. So, when we board the plane, we have no right to remain there. We can be legally removed if we’re too drunk, too loud, too creepy, too suspicious, or too big for the seat. We can be removed if we stink. We can be removed if we’re insubordinate. We can be removed for whatever reason the airline deems necessary.

    Obviously, airlines don’t like to remind us of such things, because it makes them sound mean. So they bury the truth in the fine print of a 37,000-word contract, and tell us how much they love us in sappy commercials and mandatory safety briefings that try oh-so-hard to make us smile. But the facts are clear: if you want to travel by air, you must agree to do what you’re told. If you don’t, you subject yourself to fine, arrest, constraint, forcible removal, and/or a permanent ban from the friendly skies. It’s all there in the fine print.

    Personally, I support this policy. I support it because I don’t want to fly across the country in a steel tube filled with people who get to decide which rules they will follow and which they will ignore. I’ve been on too many flights with too many angry people to worry about the specific circumstances of their outrage, or the details of why they took it upon themselves to ignore a direct command. A plane is not a democracy, and the main cabin is no place to organize a sit-in. The main cabin is a place to follow orders.

    Moving forward, what matters most to me is a heightened respect for the rules, and a heightened respect for the people who enforce them. Obviously, the policies that led to this particular fiasco need to change. But the greatest enemy we face in the friendly skies is not bad service – it’s anarchy. And I have no interest in flying with anyone who doesn’t follow orders. Do you? Does anyone?

    Let me say it again. United made a business decision that was unbelievably, incomprehensibly stupid, and now they’re paying for it. (Seriously guys – what did you think was going to happen with two hundred citizen-reporters armed with cameras?) Point is, this is how the market is supposed to work. Their stock is down hundreds of millions of dollars, their customers are flying on other carriers, and according to CNN, they just might be the most hated company in the world today. But that doesn’t mean Dr. Dao “did nothing wrong.” He did. He ignored a direct order from a United representative while sitting on a United plane. He was told to leave and he refused to do so – multiple times by multiple people – all with the proper authority.

    Does that mean he deserved a beating? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean he's innocent. Like the airline, Dr. Dao had options. He had recourse. He could have deplaned and pled his case to the gate agent. But he didn’t. He chose resistance. That was dumb. United chose confrontation. That was dumber. Now, here we are. Dumb and Dumber.

    As for your question, Donna – if I were Oscar Munoz, I’d take a page from Charlotte McCourt, the 11-year old Girl Scout who became famous on this page for telling the truth about how Girl Scout cookies actually tasted, and then, wound up selling more Girl Scout cookies than anyone else in the world. First, I’d stop apologizing for the way in which that passenger was removed, and start apologizing for being cheap and short-sighted. Then, I’d apologize for valuing rules more than common sense. Then, if United still insists on overbooking future flights, I’d publicly empower my employees to offer any amount of money to entice people off of an over-sold plane. Whatever it takes – no cap, no limit.

    But through it all, I’d make damn sure the world understood that passengers on my airline still need to follow the orders given by my people - even if they think those orders are stupid or unfair. And for that, I would make no apology whatsoever.

    Finally, let me say to my many friends on the front line of the airline industry – flight attendants, pilots, gate agents, and those of you behind the counter - I appreciate what you do, sincerely, and I understand how difficult things are right now. Your jobs have become increasingly thankless over the years, even as they have become more critical. Thanks for your hard work.

    Mike

    PS. Oscar – I’ve prepared a new greeting for your pilots to read prior to take-off. I think it captures the kind of transparency many of your customers currently crave. Maybe one day, as I pull my seatbelt low and tight across my hips, I’ll get to hear it…

    “Morning folks, and welcome aboard. This is your Captain speaking. I realize you paid a lot of money to rent the seat you’re currently occupying, but let’s be clear right from the get go – you have no right to be here. We’re glad that you are, but I don’t care how much you paid to fly with us today, or what you think you might be entitled to as a result. I’m in charge of this plane, and everyone on it. That includes you. So - if a flight attendant asks you to do something, don’t argue – just do it. We’ll try to make your flight as comfortable as possible, but make no mistake – your comfort is not our priority, and neither is your opinion about the decisions we make during the journey. As for safety, you’ll be pleased to know I have much to live for, and so does my co-pilot. So rest assured – we’ll be doing all we can up here to get ourselves back on the ground in one piece. That’s good news for the rest of you, assuming we can keep the main cabin attached to the cockpit. Finally, we value your business here at United, sincerely. And we appreciate the trust you’ve placed in us. But let’s not gild the lily. For the next few hours, we’re all in this together, so keep your hands to yourself, don’t get drunk, and listen to the flight attendants. In other words, try not to be an asshole. I’ll see you on the ground...”

    Now that’s an airline I could get behind! Who’s with me?

    Mike
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    The problem is that once you leave the airplane, you have exactly ZERO recourse except to accept the vouchers.....

    Dr. Dao had the same right to sit in that seat (that he had paid for) as Rosa Parks had to sit on that bus. The Airlines (UAL first among them) have been exceeding their authority for years, getting away with not only bad business practices, but illegal ones.

    And all that is necessary for evil to flourish, is for people to do nothing. I credit Dr. Dao, whatever his internal motivation, for finally putting the airlines on notice that even if they are not going to treat their customers well, they damned well will treat them legally.

    If the FAA was truly an independent regulatory agency, they could suspend (even void) UALs operating certificate - which would put them out of business, since UAL has violated the regulations they are required to operate under. So much for federal regulation.
    Good medicine in bad places

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdale View Post
    .... The plane is private property owned and operated by United, I think they should retain the absolute right to refuse service. Mike
    "They" reserve the right prior to taking your money, after this transaction you're entitled to services paid for.

    Are you familiar with "government subsidies"? "Wee the taxpaying peeps" are the reason the airline industry exists. We have footed the bill for their failures and shortcomings and will be on the hook for the good doctor's reimbursement ....

    Skarecrow

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fidel. MD View Post
    The problem is that once you leave the airplane, you have exactly ZERO recourse except to accept the vouchers.....
    That's not true. Had Dao complied with United he still could have sued in civil court for breach of contract.

    What Dao did not have the right to do was remain on private property after he had been ordered to leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fidel. MD View Post
    Dr. Dao had the same right to sit in that seat (that he had paid for) as Rosa Parks had to sit on that bus. The Airlines (UAL first among them) have been exceeding their authority for years, getting away with not only bad business practices, but illegal ones.
    You can't really be comparing Dao's situation to Rosa Parks, can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fidel. MD View Post
    And all that is necessary for evil to flourish, is for people to do nothing. I credit Dr. Dao, whatever his internal motivation, for finally putting the airlines on notice that even if they are not going to treat their customers well, they damned well will treat them legally.
    Evil people to do nothing?

    I'm evil because I respect Private Property rights

    Like it or not you're not entitled to fly on any airline, you don't have a constitutional right to fly united on any fight you wish

    What you can do is enter into a contractual agreement with an airline to take you somewhere

    And just like ANY other contract, even if you have a contract with someone that doesn't give you the right to take the law into your own hands if the other side reneges. If the person you have a contract with reneges on you, you do the adult thing and take them to court. You don't get to take over their private property in a hissy fit just because you aren't getting your way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fidel. MD View Post
    If the FAA was truly an independent regulatory agency, they could suspend (even void) UALs operating certificate - which would put them out of business, since UAL has violated the regulations they are required to operate under. So much for federal regulation.
    FAA regulation will never stop the fact that airlines will continue to own their airplanes, the planes are private property, you don't get to take over private property just because you purchased a ticket to fly somewhere.

    Getting back to your Rosa Parks situation

    If an Airline was bumping all black people, or all white people, or all of any other legally protected status you'd have an argument to have them shut down for violating people's civil rights, and you'd have an argument that the LEO's should not have intervened on United's behalf ........but that's not what we have here

    Here we have a guy selected by a computer algorithm so united could get a crew aboard to another destination. This wasn't based on race, it wasn't based on nationality, it was based on a very bad business decision and the guy was chosen by a computer, it wasn't personal, it was just very bad business per the company's own policy.

    The proof that we don't need government involvement in this issue is that United has done an about face on their bumping policy due to Public Pressure, not do to a court of law.
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skarecrow View Post
    "They" reserve the right prior to taking your money, after this transaction you're entitled to services paid for.

    Are you familiar with "government subsidies"? "Wee the taxpaying peeps" are the reason the airline industry exists. We have footed the bill for their failures and shortcomings and will be on the hook for the good doctor's reimbursement ....

    Skarecrow
    I guess I disagree.

    I don't feel that just because you paid for a service that you are then "Entitled" to having that service preformed.

    If you have a contract for service with someone and they reneg on you, IMHO, You are only "entitled" to a refund of your money.....that's it.

    Even If you can't get your money back you're NOT "Entitled" to take the law into your own hands.

    If this happens you are "Entitled" to sue for damages, but again IMHO you are not "entitled" to force someone into fulfilling a contract.....that's why we have a legal system.
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdale View Post
    That's not true. Had Dao complied with United he still could have sued in civil court for breach of contract.

    What Dao did not have the right to do was remain on private property after he had been ordered to leave.



    You can't really be comparing Dao's situation to Rosa Parks, can you?



    Evil people to do nothing?

    I'm evil because I respect Private Property rights

    Like it or not you're not entitled to fly on any airline, you don't have a constitutional right to fly united on any fight you wish

    What you can do is enter into a contractual agreement with an airline to take you somewhere

    And just like ANY other contract, even if you have a contract with someone that doesn't give you the right to take the law into your own hands if the other side reneges. If the person you have a contract with reneges on you, you do the adult thing and take them to court. You don't get to take over their private property in a hissy fit just because you aren't getting your way.



    FAA regulation will never stop the fact that airlines will continue to own their airplanes, the planes are private property, you don't get to take over private property just because you purchased a ticket to fly somewhere.

    Getting back to your Rosa Parks situation

    If an Airline was bumping all black people, or all white people, or all of any other legally protected status you'd have an argument to have them shut down for violating people's civil rights, and you'd have an argument that the LEO's should not have intervened on United's behalf ........but that's not what we have here

    Here we have a guy selected by a computer algorithm so united could get a crew aboard to another destination. This wasn't based on race, it wasn't based on nationality, it was based on a very bad business decision and the guy was chosen by a computer, it wasn't personal, it was just very bad business per the company's own policy.

    The proof that we don't need government involvement in this issue is that United has done an about face on their bumping policy due to Public Pressure, not do to a court of law.
    United Airline is a common carrier, which means they sell temporary property rights to others. The person or organization with a right to the property was Dao, with whatever seat UAL assigned him, and allowed him to board. He wasn't some guy who just wandered in, he paid for his seat. There are legitimate reasons that an airline may change the seat (mechanical failure, etc), none of them apply here.

    This wasnt the home of UAL and Dao just happened to be there. UAL invited him to come in, in exchange for hundreds of dollars of Daos money. Then, after all the seats were filled, UAL decided they wanted to move 4 employees (which, btw, is contrary to the FAR's, and UAL's own CoC's....). Dao did not give a damn about their algorithm (and frankly, it's a shame it won't go to court, so we can actually get a look at how 'random' it was: After all, Dao's wife was onboard too) and politely declined the offer of worthless vouchers, and a ticket the next day (which, according to UAL's CoC's, would have the greatest chance of having him bounced, again).

    Contracting with an airline means I DO get to go somewhere, after they have my money. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and UAL was not following the written laws, or their written contract. Something you seem to be glossing over, in support of the power of a corporation to exercise some property right that they sold off. And that they were in the wrong is proved by their so-called policy changes, although how much they have changed seems questionable after UAL booted a couple who sat in the wrong seat (on a mostly empty airplane).

    UAL got EXACTLY the kind of behavior from their gate agent they wanted, they trained him for and gave him the tools for.

    And you're right: Under the existing laws in Alabama, Rosa Parks had LESS right to be sitting in her seat than Dao did.
    Good medicine in bad places

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdale View Post
    I guess I disagree.

    I don't feel that just because you paid for a service that you are then "Entitled" to having that service preformed.

    If you have a contract for service with someone and they reneg on you, IMHO, You are only "entitled" to a refund of your money.....that's it.

    Even If you can't get your money back you're NOT "Entitled" to take the law into your own hands.

    If this happens you are "Entitled" to sue for damages, but again IMHO you are not "entitled" to force someone into fulfilling a contract.....that's why we have a legal system.
    Fine. UAL did NOT offer to refund the money. They offered vouchers, which cannot be used as money (they say right on them, cash value nil). They have more restrictions than frequent flier miles....

    Besides that, there are federal regulations that stipulate the minimum that UAL was obliged to offer (in cash), $800 didn't meet those requirements.

    And from a business perspective, the seat they would offer the next day, according to UAL's own policy, would have the highest priority to get bounced.

    As far as what recourse someone in a civil contract dispute might have, one thing that the allegedly aggrieved party (UAL, here) does NOT have is to have their private security goons beat someone up. Having the Chicago Airport rent-a-cops standing by doesnt make it right, either.
    Good medicine in bad places

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •