-
@starlitsky: not sure. I've used up a lot of it, and what's left really can't be used for much so it's not a huge loss to me. Do you have enough to travel or do anything fun?
-
@Meow: You linked to the same article I read. the CNN article said for involuntary bumps passengers can negotiate a check instead of a voucher. The article was laced with DOT rules and airline practice. For example random selection of passengers to bump is not correct. Airlines take into account ticket cost, passenger loyalty status, impact to their connecting flights and they try not to bump minors or people with disabilities.
ETA: if you want my seat I want a check. I don't fly enough for pleasure for a voucher to be entice me to voluntarily raise my hand to be inconvenienced by taking another flight later that day or the next day. So, I would be the passenger asking if a check was available for voluntary bumps too.
-
@Meow: when the third aviation policeman or security office (what is the best way to identify them?) came aboard the crew could have randomly selected a different passenger and sweetened the pot to leave. The crew could have called a superior and notified them of the situation. Who knows the superior could have made the call to ground 1-4 of the traveling crew to avoid an ugly incident. And the sup could have worked to get another crew to work their flight so not to have a domino effect. Or the sup could have given the blessing to forcibly remove the passenger. If the removed passenger was able to get to his destination the same day just hours later as reported in the news what was so urgent about the flight crew getting on this plane? I may have missed something about the flight time they had to work though.
As a result of this incident I think one of two things will happen. First, passengers will be emboldened not to give up their seat since getting physically removed from their seat is the worse thing an airline can do for PR purposes. Second, airlines are going to have to make overbooking remedies more advantageous for passengers. Alternative flights that leave at a reasonable time and compensation that fits the customer needs.
-
@littlejoy: Are you implying that the man was selected because he was Chinese or that he only had his past brought up because he was Chinese? I think you're way off the mark here and honestly don't think race has anything to do with this situation. The doctor's criminal history doesn't excuse the way he was treated (how could it? The airline and security officers obviously didn't even know his history when they assaulted him.) However, in my opinion, it does speak to the fact that he's not someone keen on following the rules and perhaps may have been hell bent on causing a scene. Of course, he should be able to cause a scene without being physically assaulted, but I don't think his character is irrelevant to the story.
The white parents are Disney were WIDELY criticized for their parenting. All you need to do to see that is search HelloBee. I don't think being a minority should make your past more relevant or make you subject to more scrutiny, but I also don't think it should make your past irrelevant either.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: Yes, I think that you're right, the airlines are going to have to revisit their policies for what is offered for clients that have to give up their seats. I agree that the sweet spot is variable and if the employees are given authority to make a decision (which I suspect they aren't) it would have ended differently. The compensation for me would have to at least cover the amount of the round trip ticket to my preferred destination without blackout dates, transportation to and from the airport, all meals within reason during that time frame and the cost of the hotel and all fees. The airline has access to all this information so it seems like it's a no brainer to develop a program that the employees can use to determine the offer.
-
@Truth Bombs: I was just logging in to link to the Disney/gator thread:
http://boards.hellobee.com/topic/the-disney-alligator-story
United would have gone to extraordinary lengths to find any information it could use to offset public outrage, regardless of the race of the passenger. To conclude that it (the background search) was racially motivated is such a basic supposition.
-
I don't believe the background search was racially motivated. But I think it's irrelevant to the story. Who cares about his criminal history? So what if that makes him "more likely" to not follow rules? That doesn't excuse what happened to him. Period.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I was responding to your post which said you read an article that if pax get bumped they must be reaccomodated to their destination within an hour of their original flight so why couldn't United just do that for the crew. Which isn't true. What that article we both read said was IF pax aren't reaccomodated within an hour they are entitled to a certain about of cash.
I think you're making assumptions as to how things went down, when you say the crew could have done this or that before it escalated. I think I can be safe in my own assumption that a gate agent supervisor WAS called, after the regular gate agent couldn't get the guy to leave, and then then airport security was called after the supervisor couldn't get the guy to leave either. That's just standard protocol. The whole thing was industry standard protocol everyday at most airlines for years, until this one guy who just refused to comply. Remember reports all say even the security tried to talk him into leaving before they had to forcibly remove him. I don't think this guy was ever going to leave. And there is no gentle way to remove a resistant grown man from a tight confined space. My point is, airline crews or ground employees don't ever make decisions in a bubble, without input from their coworkers or supervisors, unless it's literally a snap second life or death issue.
Once it escalates to the point where police/security have to be called, it's out of the airline's hands.
I don't know the legal ramifications of selecting another pax at the point where the first one refused to leave. I don't personally agree with it either. This guy is throwing a tantrum so let's just pick another one.
You ask, why did the crew have to get to Louisville so urgently or why couldn't they use another crew? A friend posted this on FB, it's his words not mine because I can't explain as articulately:
-
I have friends who are pilots and they live all over the place and "commute" via plane to wherever it is they are flying from. It is just the nature of the industry and it is the "price" we pay for having direct flights out of nowheresville to middleofnowhere. There are a lot of small regional airlines that are connected to the major airlines and use their major partners to commute their pilots.
ETA: To put it into perspective, would you want the available pool of pilots out of a small market (Tallahassee FL or Syracuse NY) to be limited to people who were a) pilots and b) willing to live in Syracuse and c) willing to make pennies compared to their peers in larger cities?
-
@Mrs. Sketchbook: that's a good point, but the fact that the foursome (two pilots, two FAs) were all deadheading together, tells me that this crew wasn't "commuting" but rather already at work and most likely there was a disruption to their schedule prior to this incident. As in, either the original crew got stranded elsewhere so the airline called out this reserve (on call) crew, or this WAS the original crew but their earlier flight got delayed or canceled, forcing them to be placed on this flight. Plus, airlines don't (generally, like 99% of the time) bump paying pax for commuting crews because the onus is on the crews to get themselves to work from wherever they live.
-
@Meow: To be fair, you're also making assumptions about how things went down. Just because a standard protocol exists doesn't necessarily mean it was followed to the letter in this or any particular incident. I do appreciate you sharing your insider knowledge, it's interesting to know how things are supposed to work.
ETA: An aviation expert on the radio this morning pointed out that the United CEO said both that the plane was "fully boarded" and that the crew "followed our involuntary denial of boarding process." How can both of those statements be true? It doesn't seem possible that they properly followed a "denial of boarding process" if everyone was fully boarded...Can you really deny boarding after someone has boarded?
-
@Meow: I really appreciate your viewpoint as someone in the industry. I totally get the the airline business is SO complicated... I hate flying... So I just try not to lol! I just want to say I understand where you're coming from. I guess we can all agree that it didn't have to come to this, but that United def did not do the right thing either.
-
With regards to the man's past, I thought this was a good article:
-
@Meow: ok, thanks! ETA: I left the sup giving the blessing to forcibly remove the passenger in my could of options.
One more thing that has come out is the the doctor and his wife initially agreed to the $800 and then decided not to volunteer since the next flight wasn't until the next day.
-
@MrsSCB: you're right, I am making the assumption there, although the CEO did in his initial response confirm that his employees took all the standard protocol. I was going by reports that he was asked multiple times to leave. And judging by his responses, nothing would have gotten him to leave on his own no matter what standard protocol was followed by the airline or law enforcement.
So, as far as the "denial of boarding" wording, they use that term interchangeably with denial of a reserved seat. Denial of boarding = denial of a reserved seat, in other words, crossing the threshold of the jetway or plane door or once your butt hits the seat doesn't "protect" you from the airlines carriage rules. They are clear they can throw you off at any time both in their own rules and in the federal regulations.
I agree, it didn't have to come to this and I'm sure if United had a crystal ball in how this would play out they may have done things differently. I do think this isn't all on them, every party involved - United, the passenger and law enforcement - played their part in escalating the situation.
-
@Truth Bombs: I think that there's a pattern of systemic racism in this country that invites the population to find "reasons" why minorities must have "done something to deserve it". While I don't think United's actions were racially motivated at all, I do think anyone defending his removal, by using his past, is falling into racist behavior.
There's a reason that college rapist (Brock something) was called "College Star Athlete" and the black teen in my town who was just shot by police was called "Gun Carrying Thug". This is very real - when you are not white, people automatically search to place blame. There are plenty of people who are saying this doctor had a criminal record, therefore there must be more to the story. Like, why must we search for prior history (especially in cases when the punishment in no way matches the supposed wrongdoing)? Hope that clears this up.
@pwnstar: @pinkcupcake: See above ... I absolutely don't think their search was racially motivated (but there's no way *I* could actually know that). I just think that our society is more likely to search for reasoning when a minority is involved in a crime or situation like this.
-
@Meow: I thought this was interesting -- the words "denial of boarding" may be applied more generally even after someone has physically boarded the plane, but if the guy ends up suing, I think this raises valid questions about whether it would hold up legally. It does seem odd that "denial of boarding" could mean removing someone from their seat when they also have a separate "refusal of transport" section. I wonder what reasoning they would give for applying whichever terminology if they can essentially mean the same thing? I'm interested to see how it plays out anyway, if it comes to that. It's also possible that if he sues they'd just settle rather than give the situation any more attention.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
-
@littlejoy: I'm not denying there is a problem with systematic racism in this country. I'm just saying it's not at play in this case and I think you're reaching. It doesn't mean I'm "falling into racist behavior" if I say "Hm, someone who abused his credentials as an MD to trade prescription drugs for sex may have an issue following the rules and that may have played a part in why this situation escalated". It doesn't make the physical assault OK, and don't think any one is defending that. My opinion on how his past may reflect on his character wouldn't change a bit if he were white. Even in your initial post you chose an example which didn't fit your line of thinking because despite being white, the parents in the Disney case had plenty of blame placed on them.
I think when we make things about race that clearly aren't, we do a disservice to improving systematic racism. It becomes a situation where it makes it easier for someone to say "Oh look, they are playing the race card, AGAIN" and encourages thought processes that allow people to dismiss actual issues of race that need to be addressed.
-
@littlejoy: It's so complicated! As a minority (I'm Korean-American), I'm really sensitive to any potential race issues. It doesn't feel like his background was brought up because he's Chinese - it was more like, OMG look at all this scandal behind him! (And of course, his background involves illegal prescriptions and paying for sex - and not just any sex, but SAME SEX! OMG!). So many factors at play here. I'm just so irritated that anyone could consider this even possibly relevant to the issue at all.
-
@Truth Bombs: It's victim blaming. His past had nothing to do with this incident. Why are you telling me I'm reaching? I am reading your perspective, and it's ok that we don't agree.
Yes, moms on HB judged the Disney situation ... but as it was unfolding, I didn't see mugshots of the child's father plastered onto the TV during Nightly News (it wouldn't have been relevant). I didn't hear speculation from veteran news reporters about why the child was taken. Within a few hours of the gorilla incident, the child's father's mugshots were shown, even though he wasn't even there (again, absolutely not relevant) ... nearly every single person I was friends with on FB instantly blamed the mother. I am not wrong here ... and again, it's ok if you don't agree. There is a pattern of looking for "reasoning" in situations like this ... and that happens more when it involves minorities.
@pinkcupcake: I agree - totally complicated. I also agree that I don't think anyone said, "Hey, this guy is Chinese ... let's dig up his past!". I think it's more than there's some fixation on finding the cause or reasoning why he protested, why he wouldn't just leave. And people are really quick to make the connection that with a criminal history, he's obviously the problem here. It irritates me too.
-
@littlejoy: Did the father in the Disney situation have mug shots to be plastered on the Nightly News?
-
@Truth Bombs: I don't know. It doesn't matter, because it would have been completely irrelevant. And, if he had a criminal past, would that have meant his child deserved to die more than the child of a father without a criminal past?!
The father in the gorilla incident wasn't even there, so why on earth would that have mattered AT ALL? And, even if he was there, it's inappropriate ... as soon as people saw his mugshot, the tone of the conversation shifted, and it was suddenly "ok" to blame the parents, because they were obviously not being vigilant enough.
I judged in both situations (I am human) - but I never thought to find out more about the parents, or thought their past had any connection to the situation at-hand. THAT would be reaching.
-
@Truth Bombs: who cares if the father had mug shots?
-
Of course people are going to look into the background of this guy, it's a huge story. As far as I can see Americans are still blaming United, look at how much money they lost!
-
@Meow: I think we are in agreement! I honestly think that all the fuss over this is a little misguided, even though the footage is disturbing. Imagine if Target asked a customer to leave a checkout line at 10 pm even though they had their wallet out ready to pay. The customer is not entitled to buy stuff at Target, or even to be in that space. Once a business tells you to leave, you should just leave. And if you don't leave, and they call the cops....well good luck to you. It would have been better for the person to leave and sue for damages, or get on a flight with another airline, pay out of pocket then sue, etc. There are appropriate avenues for things like this. I honestly see a lot of flyer entitlement and "plane rage" in the commentary around this. I am lucky that I don't have to fly often (in fact I haven't flown in over 5 years) so maybe I just don't "get" the urgency that other people feel, but it sort of disturbs me how overscheduled, stretched thin, and taxed most people are these days. Anger at airlines seems to come from the same source as road rage. The airline industry is over-optimized, and people are as well.
-
@pinkcupcake: @littlejoy: I just don't see the logic of saying that when the parents are white their mug shots aren't on the nightly news if the parents didn't actually have mug shots. It's not comparing apples to apples so it doesn't support the point. If the Disney parents DID have mug shots, I'd be willing to bet they would have been on the nightly news. I'm not trying to make the point whether criminal history is relevant or irrelevant. I'm trying to make the point that I don't think race has anything to do with the United situation.
-
@littlejoy: I understand what you are saying. People seek to find an "otherness" to victims so that they can feel safe that it wouldn't happen to them. This is a common psychological phenomenon. It is called the Just-World hypothesis I believe. That we want to believe in a world where people get what they deserve so if someone was hurt, it must be because of them. It does seem to happen more to people of color, who are already seen as "other".
-
@Mrs. Sketchbook: I don't think that's a fair comparison. It would be more like if I already paid for something at target, they took away that item and then gave me a different one that I didn't actually want and asked me to leave...
-
@pinkcupcake: Eh I dunno, I live in a rural area with an opioid addition culture so perhaps that's why I am sensitive to his background and it does influence my opinion...I find it really disturbing to think of a person abusing their professional power to manipulate addicts for sex. The fact that he's Asian American or enjoys same sex exploitation has no bearing on my opinion, but his previous abuses of power does force me to wonder whether there was more conflict between him and the police than what was caught on camera. I'm not saying his past has anything to do with the current situation in a legal sense, but it does stretch my empathy for him.
That being said, I typically don't defend the police and I do believe that police need better training in de-escalating conflict, and should be held accountable for their part in escalating conflicts (this is why we need body cameras).
But there's only so much a police officer can do on a plane that's supposed to take off momentarily. Like, most de-escalating strategies require you to take more time, and there isn't time for that on a plane, and especially with so little space. -
@MrsSCB: It definitely isn't the exact same thing, and no exact comparison could be made, that's true. Maybe a rental car? You get to the rental car place and all the cards are gone due to a freak schedule snafu/accident? I dunno....regardless, no one is entitled to be on a plane for any amount of time for any reason. If someone were in the middle of a haircut and you got aggressive with them, they could kick you out with half shag/half pixie. Their place of business.
-
@Truth Bombs: Like my "star college athlete" vs. "gun-toting gang member" example - our society loves a witch hunt, and there is plenty of evidence that minorities are often described by their offense vs. their accolades.
This man in the United situation could be identified as "doctor violently removed from airplane" or "former sex worker addict refused to leave plane" - same person, same situation, but the language and point of reference matters. I am really sensitive to this, and after spending a lot of time in social justice circles, I can tell you that this is a problematic issue.
I'm talking about our society's demand for reasoning, and the large news corporations role in shaping how we view victims. I agree that I don't think he was targeted because he's Asian. I do think there is an odd fixation to make excuses for United because of the man's past ... and because United/the news media released that information, now the focus gets shifted to the realm of victim blaming.
-
@Mrs. Sketchbook: being kicked out of a hair salon for being aggressive is one thing. Being refused transport - once already boarded, for the reason that the flight is overbooked - isn't included in UA's COC. He wasn't getting kicked out for being aggressive. Not the same thing, imo
-
@travellingbee: Thanks for the reference to that theory/phenomenon.
I know there are plenty of other theories about why fellow passengers didn't step up (like thinking someone else would do it) and the known problems with people in authority quickly escalating situations and getting "high" on the power. Both were really fascinating to me while studying psychology and sociology.
-
And fwiw, I think his prior legal history is terrible and he should have definitely had his medical license revoked. Abusing your degree like that is beyond awful. But those crimes are completely unrelated to what transpired here. Maybe if his prior convictions were for obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, assaulting a law enforcement officer - maybe in that case, one could argue relevancy. But abusing his medical authority in this way? I don't think so.
-
@pinkcupcake: What happened between the customer and the police after the police were called? Honest question...I've only seen the aisle dragging video, nothing before or after.
-
@littlejoy: See, I don't actually disagree with anything you said in your last post (though I will point out I just did a scan of major news sites CNN, Washington Post, The Atlantic, etc and at quick glance didn't see the victim referenced in a negative tone in a headline so I'm not sure of your point there). In your last post you say "I agree I don't think he was targeted because he's Asian". But in your first post you said "It's the 'American Way' to find a minority at fault". True as that statement may be, I don't believe it's applicable to THIS situation (and your last post suggests you don't either) and that's what I took issue with. As I said above, when we make things about race that aren't, it's counterproductive to improving racism in this country.
-
@Mrs. Sketchbook: I don't think anyone started recording until he was forcibly dragged out of his seat.
I'm assuming you're asking this because i made a comparison to your example of being asked to leave the salon with your hair half done because you're getting aggressive. In this case, it's pretty clear the passenger was getting angry BECAUSE he was asked to leave. If he hadn't been asked to leave, none of this would have happened. This isn't the case of a person just randomly becoming aggressive and belligerent on a flight
http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-ceo-letter-employee-2017-4
-
@pinkcupcake: I wonder if the cops had a body camera...would have been a good idea....
-
And while ua deserves the backlash, I think ppl are forgetting that it was Chicago aviation security that actually caused the physical harm and did the dragging. Where's the anger and indignation towards them?
-
@pinkcupcake: concur
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
153 comments