# Flying the Friendly Skies!



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Has anyone else seen that ad showing an American Airlines aircraft in flight, emblazoned with the message:

"We may lose your bags, 


but we won't beat your a**!"

Informative, timely, persuasive, eh? LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Has anyone else seen that ad showing an American Airlines aircraft in flight, emblazoned with the message:
> 
> "We may lose your bags,
> 
> ...


This is going to take a long time to shake out. The behavior of those responsible was disgusting, unacceptable and stunningly stupid. There are *so* many better ways this all could have all been handled. The elderly physician who was assaulted will undoubtedly wind up richer, but I don't know how much that will compensate for a concussion, a broken nose with damaged sinuses that will require surgery, and even worse, the emotional trauma of being beaten and dragged out of the seat for which you paid while sitting next to your wife.

I hope everyone who can rubs United's nose in this, it is richly deserved. And hopefully it will serve more broadly as notice that that there's a right way and a wrong way to treat the public, and simply possessing authority is not license to abuse it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm pretty certain the wish you express in your closing comment in the post above, will be granted over and over again as we progress through the next couple of weeks. I sure wish the security personnel responding had been wearing body cameras! The response showcased in the original video makes no sense and is patently excessive in so many ways. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> I'm pretty certain the wish you express in your closing comment in the post above, will be granted over and over again as we progress through the next couple of weeks. I sure wish the security personnel responding had been wearing body cameras! The response showcased in the original video makes no sense and is patently excessive in so many ways. :icon_scratch:


I've seen snippets on news broadcasts that obviously originated from multiple other passengers on the flight who were horrified by what was being done. Evidently the doctor refused an offer of $800 to give up his seat (Interestingly, by statute, the maximum an airline has to offer is around $1,350.) as he was returning home to his practice where he had multiple patients he had to see the next day. When they tried to remove him, he resisted by holding onto a post, and he was assaulted. It was reported that the officers involved are not regular police officers, and receive minimal training. (And I'll also bet they and their bosses are *not* well compensated!) One of them has already been suspended for his actions.

But ultimately, it's United's responsibility in general, and the captain's specifically. While I'm sure he didn't instruct them to attack a passenger, neither did he attempt to intervene to diffuse the situation, and my understanding is that he's the ultimate authority aboard the aricraft. As you know much better than many, you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

This is a prime example of bureaucratic thinking. Both on the part of the airline as well as the CPD aviation cops. 

I fly American mostly but rest assured I'll not ever fly United again. Far too many airlines to choose from.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> This is a prime example of bureaucratic thinking. Both on the part of the airline as well as the CPD aviation cops.
> 
> I fly American mostly but rest assured I'll not ever fly United again. Far too many airlines to choose from.


In a news presentation on this issue, the individual being interviewed said that EU regulations and protections for the rights of the passenger are much better than for U.S. carriers, and that whenever he can, he'll book on an EU airline specifically for that reason.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

What were the UA folks thinking with? Surely not the end the rest of us use.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Worth reading...

https://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Not really. Completely irrelevant to the case at hand. 

That could have been Ming the Merciless in that seat. What happened, including the processes in place, was an utter breakdown of common sense and I hope United pays a dear, dear price for it. 

This is a real-life playing out of the Stanford Prison Experiment.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> Worth reading...
> 
> https://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/


To the extent that is factual, the doctor is a jerk, I'm glad he's not my doctor, and I wouldn't buddy-up with him. But . . . .



SG_67 said:


> ^ Not really. Completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
> 
> That could have been Ming the Merciless in that seat. What happened, including the processes in place, was an utter breakdown of common sense and I hope United pays a dear, dear price for it.
> 
> This is a real-life playing out of the Stanford Prison Experiment.


SG67 is 100% right. The officers didn't smack him for any of that stuff, they did it because he wanted to sit in the plane seat he had pair for.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm not even sure why the police were involved. It wasn't a matter of public safety. This was a dispute between two private individuals; one a customer and the other a business. 

It bothers me that a private business can call upon the coercive power of government, with it's monopoly on violence, to settle a private dispute. It's the airlines job to make sure that it has policies and procedures in place to solve issues like this and more importantly, that it has a more reliable way of shuttling it's employees to and fro in order to operate. 

Aviation police need to tell the airlines that in these cases they will not get involved unless their is a criminal act in progress. Otherwise, the airline had better pony up. Airlines overbook in order to make sure their planes are full on take off. That means that sometimes they have to just bite the bullet and pony up.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I despise airports. One of the few spheres of interaction where someone on minimum wage can lord it over people with complete impunity.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

1. An airline should not boot a random passenger just because it chooses to overbook. If airlines choose to employ this strategy they should be prepared to buy back seats via auction with no maximum.

2. The pilot is in charge of his aircraft. Physical refusal to comply with his orders is unacceptable and can lead to nothing good. Legal and other objections can be raised later and damages awarded if appropriate.

3. Refusal to physically comply will necessarily result in a messy situation. Of course, imperfectly trained personnel will make things even worse.

The passenger was entitled to be upset, but he was not entitled to resist. Perceived unfair treatment is not license to disobey a command of the pilot. That said, the airline industry should be criticized for expecting the risk of their over-booking strategy to be borne by random passengers. It would not surprise me if one of the major airlines (perhaps even United) remedies this lousy practice in the very near future.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ airlines have the right to kick a passenger off due to overbooking and furthermore have the right to decide which passenger to remove. Meaning if you are a loyalty program flyer, the airline can choose to let you fly and instead kick off the poor schmuck who only flies now and then. 
With that said, legislation needs to be passed so that this type of thing does not happen again. 

For instance, the airline should be obligated to inform a passenger, before he hits the pay button, that the flight he is purchasing passage on is already sold out and he is purchasing a ticket on an overbooked flight. I realize the term overbooked is a moving target as the next day if someone decides to switch flights, the flight is no longer overbooked. But at least at that particular time the flight is in a "overbook status". 

Furthermore, once on board, the airline has agreed to fly the passenger. End of story. Find someone else in line who has not yet boarded. Or, don't board anyone until you've solved the overbooking issue. 

The coercive power of government should never be employed in order to resolve the airlines logistical mistakes and shortcomings. This situation was exactly that. United needed to shuttle employees to another airport. It's their failure to plan and to have procedures and logistics in place to make sure they have the employees they need to conduct business. 

Government agents are not servile to private interests. This was not a public safety issue. Mr. Dao was not posing a threat to the flight, its crew or other passengers. He did not board illegally nor was he a wanted fugitive. He was an American citizen with rights and he was beaten and battered by cops for doing nothing more than wanting to go home. 

Chicago is a sanctuary city for anyone seeking refuge unless of course you're a citizen minding your own business. Then I guess it's open season.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So, why do airlines overbook anyway?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ airlines have the right to kick a passenger off due to overbooking and furthermore have the right to decide which passenger to remove. Meaning if you are a loyalty program flyer, the airline can choose to let you fly and instead kick off the poor schmuck who only flies now and then.
> With that said, legislation needs to be passed so that this type of thing does not happen again.
> 
> For instance, the airline should be obligated to inform a passenger, before he hits the pay button, that the flight he is purchasing passage on is already sold out and he is purchasing a ticket on an overbooked flight. I realize the term overbooked is a moving target as the next day if someone decides to switch flights, the flight is no longer overbooked. But at least at that particular time the flight is in a "overbook status".
> ...


SG,

Yes, there is no law that prevents the airline from booting passengers. I never said their was. The passenger's only recourse would be via contract law, and I'll bet that the boilerplate nobody reads has the airlines fully covered. But we all have legal rights to do things that are just wrong, and this is an example. Airlines should be embarrassed by this practice. Unlike you, however, I would prefer not to use the "coercive power of government" to remedy the situation. Market power should work just fine assuming adequate information, and Americans are receiving ample information this week.

We don't yet know why United waited till passengers were boarded to deal with the over-booking problem, but the best speculation is that that the problem was not apparent till it was too late. While reports are incomplete and not fully consistent, it appears that United was trying to get a flight crew to an aircraft (not entirely clear whether it was even United's plane or crew) so that it would not be delayed, and perhaps the facts and circumstances simply had not matured until it was too late. The only other option at that point -- aside from the more obvious and correct one I proposed -- was to deplane all passengers, deal with the issue, and then re-board. Obviously not an optimal solution either.

Finally, your proposed solution seems to me to be a very sound alternative to an unlimited auction as long as the airline may boot only late-booking passengers who therefore clicked that button thereby assuming the risk. Your solution would not work, however, in cases where a flight is exactly 100% booked, but seats are needed for last minute reasons such as in this circumstance, unless the risk assumption requirement kicked in before 100% booking -- which would certainly seem doable.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Howard said:


> So, why do airlines overbook anyway?


Because they always have no-shows and empty seats represent lost revenue.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> SG,
> 
> Yes, there is no law that prevents the airline from booting passengers. I never said their was. The passenger's only recourse would be via contract law, and I'll bet that the boilerplate nobody reads has the airlines fully covered. But we all have legal rights to do things that are just wrong, and this is an example. Airlines should be embarrassed by this practice. Unlike you, however, I would prefer not to use the "coercive power of government" to remedy the situation. Market power should work just fine assuming adequate information, and Americans are receiving ample information this week.
> 
> ...


My intent wasn't to refute your solution. I think that's a great idea and I think it truly inserts a market solution with its inherent risk/reward for the passengers involved. Actually, the law stipulates that if the airline bumps you even after asking, they are obligated to pay you money right there and then.

Arbitrary limits on payouts should be lifted. Right now the airlines are getting off cheap because the rules are somewhat opaque and most flyers just don't know. The airlines need to start feeling the financial pinch of overbooking and perhaps then they will start rethinking how they do this.

My concern was why the police were inovolved. The P&P should be such that the police need to ascertain the nature of the request. Is the passenger committing an illegal act or otherwise a danger to himself, others and the flight in general? If not, then the police needn't be involved. Deplane, offer more money or just leave and suck up the consequences. Someone is going to be inconvenienced either way. If it's a purely logistical issue, then government needs to tell the business to deal with it their own way and suffer whatever costs associated with their mistake.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> My intent wasn't to refute your solution. I think that's a great idea and I think it truly inserts a market solution with its inherent risk/reward for the passengers involved. Actually, the law stipulates that if the airline bumps you even after asking, they are obligated to pay you money right there and then.
> 
> Arbitrary limits on payouts should be lifted. Right now the airlines are getting off cheap because the rules are somewhat opaque and most flyers just don't know. The airlines need to start feeling the financial pinch of overbooking and perhaps then they will start rethinking how they do this.
> 
> My concern was why the police were inovolved. The P&P should be such that the police need to ascertain the nature of the request. Is the passenger committing an illegal act or otherwise a danger to himself, others and the flight in general? If not, then the police needn't be involved. Deplane, offer more money or just leave and suck up the consequences. Someone is going to be inconvenienced either way. If it's a purely logistical issue, then government needs to tell the business to deal with it their own way and suffer whatever costs associated with their mistake.


We are in general agreement, except for the role of the police. I continue to think that the pilot should be the authority on the plane, and civil authorities should generally be willing to enforce his commands if necessary as a simple matter of public safety without having to investigate, litigate, or resolve the cause or merits up front -- which in my judgment would be impractical.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The smart thing for the airline to do, given the situation they were faced with (including all it's complications), would have been to take a little more time to resolve the overbooking dilemma. Announce to the passengers that it is taking longer than expected to reduce passenger load to an acceptable number and that the departure will be delayed until such is achieved. Public opinion would have shifted pretty quickly, encouraging a more timely, rather than less timely resolution. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> We are in general agreement, except for the role of the police. I continue to think that the pilot should be the authority on the plane, and civil authorities should generally be willing to enforce his commands if necessary as a simple matter of public safety without having to investigate, litigate, or resolve the cause or merits up front -- which in my judgment would be impractical.


But it wasn't a public safety issue. It was a matter of logistical failure. The flight was not in danger. The police should never have been called on board.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^The doctor's refusing to deplane, failing to comply with the directions of the flight crew, technically constitutes creating a disturbance on a public conveyance...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> But it wasn't a public safety issue. It was a matter of logistical failure. The flight was not in danger. The police should never have been called on board.


Any time a passenger refuses to comply with a pilot's command, we have a public safety issue. Passengers should comply. Period. Full stop. If the pilot's decision was wrong, the remedy must be resolved later -- not via a passenger-crew standoff on a commercial aircraft.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^The doctor's refusing to deplane, failing to comply with the directions of the flight crew, technically constitutes creating a disturbance on a public conveyance...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


Exactly right. Of course, this does not mean the crew or airline is always correct on the merits, but it means that their authority to make decisions must be respected regardless of the correctness of those decisions, which can be appealed and resolved later.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If the law is that at any time someone can be forced to deplane for any reason or else be subject to police brutality then the law needs to be changed. 

The airline in this case overbooked and failed to have policies and pricedures in place to deal with overbooking as well as a failure in logistics. Then it calls upon civil authorities, who have guns, to come on board and to remove someone so that they can remain profitable. 

Me. Day was not a danger to the flight. The captain should have to right to request that he leave the plane. Perhaps that's not the law now but it should be. People have rights and are not cattle.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Straw man.
Police brutality is by definition never justified. But force is not always brutality. And if one refuses physically to comply with a pilot's order to deplane, then the removal will require force. The law requires the least force necessary to secure compliance, but any police officer will tell you that it will usually be messier than one would wish. All the more reason to comply. 
And I have rights too. I should not have to wait indefinitely on a tarmac because a passenger refuses to comply with a command of a pilot. And whether the command is right, wrong, prudent, or imprudent is beside the point -- the tarmac is not the place to litigate the matter.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ nor is it the place to figure out at the last minute that your company has made a logistical error. Like I said, the law needs to change. 

The moment the police were called in to enforce a private contract then any force used was brutality. They never should have even been on board.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
....but isn't that the point? When a passenger fails to comply with the flight crew's direction/instructions, they are technically in violation of the law and law enforcement can be brought into the picture.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hmmmm. No reasonable person should deign to 'comply' with unreasonable demands.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

By the way a pilot means little to me. It is a job not a divine right. Pilot schmilot. The chap who flips burgers at McDonalds owns equal authority.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Hmmmm. No reasonable person should deign to 'comply' with unreasonable demands.


If a demand is made by a person with the legal authority to make it, then a person has no right to not comply even if he believes the demand is unreasonable. Think about the ramifications of any other rule. Any person can subjectively believe that any demand is unreasonable. Of course in some cases he will be objectively correct, and in other cases not, but it is important that the merits to be sorted out at the appropriate time and place. There is good reason that captains of ships, air and nautical, are accorded broad powers under law, common and regulatory, national and international.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike, my much admired fellow member, legal authority matters little to those who possess a shred of judgement. Such action will guarantee our freedom from tyranny.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Mike, my much admired fellow member, legal authority matters little to those who possess a shred of judgement. Such action will guarantee our freedom from tyranny.


Perhaps, my good friend. But the funny thing about judgment is that it is exactly like common sense -- everyone thinks they have it at all times.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps, my good friend. But the funny thing about judgment is that it is exactly like common sense -- everyone thinks they have it at all times.


Ain't that the truth. 

.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Then we need to ask whether what he did was legal or not, no? What if he asked for the person to be removed because of his religious beliefs? Or political? Or skin color? Is that a legal order or demand? 

If the person's presence as somehow a danger, or say his presence tipped the scales enough to make the plane overweight I can understand. 

But in this case it was to let someone else fly.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> 1. An airline should not boot a random passenger just because it chooses to overbook. If airlines choose to employ this strategy they should be prepared to buy back seats via auction with no maximum.





eagle2250 said:


> ^^The doctor's refusing to deplane, failing to comply with the directions of the flight crew, technically constitutes creating a disturbance on a public conveyance...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


Yes, it is. But the way this played out was horrendous, and seems broadly to be the result of two intertwined problems; first the laws and regulations that pertain, and secondly the judgement and behavior of both the United Personnel and aviation police involved in the incident.

I strongly suspect that the applicable laws and regulations are slanted in favor of the airlines' perceived self-interest rather than that of the passengers'. I think something along the lines of Mike's excellent suggestion above would be both workable and desirable. Simply put, if there was greater incentive to do so, the airlines would have to manage their businesses better. I.e., clean up their act.

Should any be curious, the Wikipedia entry at this link is a summary of air carrier requirements in similar situations within in the EU-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Compensation_Regulation_261/2004

The second problem area is one you highlighted which is the individual judgement of the United staff and aviation officers involved. Had better leadership and decision making been exercised, it's almost certain what happened could have been avoided. Your simple suggestion of allowing this to play out over more time with soft "encouragement" rather than initiating force should have yielded far more desirable results for all concerned.

A review of the real-life policies and procedures that are used, and better training and support of those required to enforce them would seem to be a minimum requirement.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Sorry, couldn't resist...


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

sbdivemaster said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist...
> View attachment 17075


If he threw in season tickets down on the floor for the Bulls, and a handful of hookers, I'd bet he had a deal!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Not really. Completely irrelevant to the case at hand.


Not unless you consider a clear profit motive. It would not be his first scheme. If my face is bleeding, I am wiping the blood and applying pressure to the wound. However, if I am making sure that it is seen by as many people as possible, I would do exactly what he did.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ so he instigated the whole thing so he could get beat up and sue?

Perhaps he and the airline employee in charge of picking who got booted were in cahoots? "Hey, make sure you pick me when you need to kick someone off. I'll make it worth your while."


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ so he instigated the whole thing so he could get beat up and sue?
> 
> Perhaps he and the airline employee in charge of picking who got booted were in cahoots? "Hey, make sure you pick me when you need to kick someone off. I'll make it worth your while."


Not exactly. However, I don't put it past a criminal mind to know when to escalate an event to his advantage.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ well, I think you're letting your imagination run a bit amok. 

Eh, whatever. The guy is going to get a huge settlement. Congress will have committee meetings where pols will bloviate and emote and nothing will happen because they'll move onto the next shiny object.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Even if United was within their rights. ?? Why didn't they stop boarding of those passengers at the gate? And the thugs that removed the passengers were not even police officers!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Andy said:


> Even if United was within their rights. ?? Why didn't they stop boarding of those passengers at the gate? And the thugs that removed the passengers were not even police officers!


I think they're sorta officers. From what I've gleaned, the aviation police at O'Hare are a separate group within the Chicago Police.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Andy said:


> Even if United was within their rights. ?? Why didn't they stop boarding of those passengers at the gate? And the thugs that removed the passengers were not even police officers!





Flanderian said:


> I think they're sorta officers. From what I've gleaned, the aviation police at O'Hare are a separate group within the Chicago Police.


The aviation police have police powers. Only if such power also came with the requisite sense.

I'll say it again, the law needs to be changed that police will only get involved when it's a case of public safety or a crime being committed. The police aren't there to compensate for United's screwed up business model.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The aviation police have police powers. Only if such power also came with the requisite sense.
> 
> I'll say it again, the law needs to be changed that police will only get involved when it's a case of public safety or a crime being committed. The police aren't there to compensate for United's screwed up business model.


Your point is well taken, but don't police also enforce private contracts in some circumstances, such as evictions?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Andy said:


> Even if United was within their rights. ?? Why didn't they stop boarding of those passengers at the gate? And the thugs that removed the passengers were not even police officers!


If he had boarded without paying or had been violating the law then I can see the point. I wonder how it would work if the landlord wanted to kick the tenant out because there was another person who was willing to pay more.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Coercion, violence*

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the increasing militarization of American police agencies that has occurred over the past 30 or so years. I have the impression that police are increasingly willing to use force, even deadly force, in situations where they would not have done so in the not too distant past. In the present instance the police violence seems particularly uncalled for as the victim was somewhat old and, having gone through a security screening, could be presumed to not be armed.

Is it clear whether the uniformed individuals were sworn officers or merely rent a cops?

Is it clear whether the captain of the aircraft requested the removal, or was it a company employee? I ask, because the point has been raised that captains of airplanes are supposed to have authority, I imagine, analogous to that of ship's captains.

I also wonder why the victim's status as a physician, reportedly with patients to see the following day, has not been mentioned in the course of this discussion.

Needless to say, I will avoid flying United in the future. And I am delighted to have a practical reason for using European airlines. This is not to say that good food and appealing destinations are not practical considerations.

Not to get too far afield, but this incident seems to me to be characteristic of what I can only describe as the increasingly coercive character of our society.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> I also wonder why the victim's status as a physician, reportedly with patients to see the following day, has not been mentioned in the course of this discussion.


Due to numerous felony convictions, Dr. Dao lost his license to practice medicine from 2005-2015. In 2015, the suspension was lifted to allow him restricted practice, but he screwed up again. In 2016, the medical board further restricted his practice, only allowing him to practice internal medicine at an outpatient clinic for one day per week. And, no, the day after the flight was not that day.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the increasing militarization of American police agencies that has occurred over the past 30 or so years. I have the impression that police are increasingly willing to use force, even deadly force, in situations where they would not have done so in the not too distant past. In the present instance the police violence seems particularly uncalled for as the victim was somewhat old and, having gone through a security screening, could be presumed to not be armed.
> 
> Is it clear whether the uniformed individuals were sworn officers or merely rent a cops?
> 
> ...


They are police officers with full police powers. The whole militarization of the police argument is a red herring. These guys weren't dressed in riot gear nor did they drive an armored car onto the plane.

This was a complete breakdown in common sense brought on by poor logistics and a poor business model. Ultimately this was a business that didn't put it's customers first.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Mike Petrik said:


> Because they always have no-shows and empty seats represent lost revenue.


So then order more planes.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^The doctor's refusing to deplane, failing to comply with the directions of the flight crew, technically constitutes creating a disturbance on a public conveyance...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


Yes, Dr.Dao was acting belligerent.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"Planes, Trains and Automobiles?"


If you wand fast and economical, take a plane.

If you want friendly, take a train. What a great way to travel cross country!

If you want more personalized attention to all the detail(s) of your travel, take your own automobile. Retired and with time on our hands, that's the way the wife and I roll these days. See more, do more, have more fun! :thumbs-up:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ +1 on driving. It's a great way to see the country and the journey itself is about as interesting as the destination.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> "Planes, Trains and Automobiles?"
> 
> If you wand fast and economical, take a plane.
> 
> ...


If the Eagles ever pass through Atlanta, I hope you give me a shout should so my bride and I can buy you a couple cocktails or dinner. Cheers!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> This was a complete breakdown in common sense brought on by poor logistics and a poor business model. Ultimately this was a business that didn't put it's customers first.


^^^This is EXACTLY right. I am tired of the media characterizing this as an "overbooked" flight. It was simply a full flight that did not have enough room to accommodate 4 last-minute, deadheading crew. This whole scenario could have bee avoided with better logistical planning. Are we to assume that this was a fill-in crew for another crew that, for whatever reason, timed-out on their hours of service? Dr. Dao WILL get paid. And he will be paid well. Social media, in all of its wisdom [sarcasm], will see to that.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> Due to numerous felony convictions, Dr. Dao lost his license to practice medicine from 2005-2015. In 2015, the suspension was lifted to allow him restricted practice, but he screwed up again. In 2016, the medical board further restricted his practice, only allowing him to practice internal medicine at an outpatient clinic for one day per week. And, no, the day after the flight was not that day.


Thank you for adding this to the discussion. It is, in a way encouraging that there are facts that could support a less one-sided version of the incident.
Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

The doctor's previous offenses have nothing whatsoever to do with excusing the police or airline behavior, unless it can be demonstrated that they knew about these prior bad acts. And even then it would be a very tenuous.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> The doctor's previous offenses have nothing whatsoever to do with excusing the police or airline behavior, unless it can be demonstrated that they knew about these prior bad acts. And even then it would be a very tenuous.


They didn't know about him. But he knew that the situation would escalate if he didn't comply. In my (very unpopular) opinion, he put on an Oscar-worthy performance, knowing that public sentiment would be on his side. Basically, he seized the opportunity and will parlay it into millions.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> They didn't know about him. But he knew that the situation would escalate if he didn't comply. In my (very unpopular) opinion, he put on an Oscar-worthy performance, knowing that public sentiment would be on his side. Basically, he seized the opportunity and will parlay it into millions.


That well may be and unless he shared it with someone, we may never know.

But the string of events that had to occur JUST right for things to work out for him to get a major payday makes that plan incredibly low percentage.


----------



## Stuart Midgley (Apr 3, 2017)

The airline could also have just upped their offer for people willing to be offloaded. I was flying with Air New Zealand once when a similar situation arose (before boarding however). As I recall they offered overnight in a quality hotel, $150 cash (would be worth more like $200 today) and an upgrade to business the next day. There was almost a fight over who would get to get *off* the flight!

Granted that might be a lot of cost for the US domestic setting where profit margins are lower but still, surely a $100 cash inducement would have been cheaper to the airline than the cost of this god-awful mess?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ yup. But instead they played it cheap and are now going to pay for it.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ yup. But instead they played it cheap and are now going to pay for it.


I noticed today that United changed two major rules for future flights. Passengers can no longer be removed from a plane once seated AND they upped the amount that can be given to a passenger to give up their seat to $10,000. That's quite a chunk of change for a few hours inconvenience. However, it will never get that high. They will get plenty of volunteers without ever exceeding $2000.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ its smart game theory. Keep holding out and others will take the offer and you'll be left holding the bag. 

I'm sure out of 100 people, they will be able to find 4-5 people who are more than willing to take 1-2 large for a minor inconvenience.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> They are police officers with full police powers. The whole militarization of the police argument is a red herring. These guys weren't dressed in riot gear nor did they drive an armored car onto the plane.


I'm not, in the present discussion, talking about police equipment, but rather the increasing use of excessive, sometimes deadly, force by police officers as their way of dealing with the public. This is related to what I see as a trend in our society towards increasingly coercive, if not authoritarian, behavior and policies by the state.

I have observed this trend accelerate, it seems to me markedly, since the 1980's. I realize that this is subjective, and that others' observations of police - civilian interactions may have conveyed a different impression than I have gotten.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I agree with your point to the extent that the police should not be used as an airlines private security force in order to ensure profitability. 

However, come hangout on the south side where gangs are armed to the teeth.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> If the Eagles ever pass through Atlanta, I hope you give me a shout should so my bride and I can buy you a couple cocktails or dinner. Cheers!


Thank-you for that very gracious offer and likewise, should you and your wife ever find yourselves coming through our part of central Florida, allow me to return that offer. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> I noticed today that United changed two major rules for future flights. Passengers can no longer be removed from a plane once seated AND they upped the amount that can be given to a passenger to give up their seat to $10,000. That's quite a chunk of change for a few hours inconvenience. However, it will never get that high. They will get plenty of volunteers without ever exceeding $2000.


Now, wasn't that simple, United?

S***w your customers enough and you wind up shooting yourself in the foot. A little bit of intelligence beats a whole lot of force every time.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Now, wasn't that simple, United?
> S***w your customers enough and you wind up shooting yourself in the foot. A little bit of intelligence beats a whole lot of force every time.


Words of wisdom...


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

As I understand the issues here, and I don't always, they are:

Did the person(s) with the authority to require a passenger to disembark issue that order, directly or through surrogates.

Did the doctor then refuse to leave.

Was force required by those legally authorized to employ it.

If so, was the force used reasonable. The legal standard is one of a reasonable officer, not "least amount". The case law here is Graham v. Connor. In that case, a person suffering from severe diabetic low blood sugar asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store for orange juice. The store was too busy, so he immediately left and told his friend to take to another store. A police officer, seeing the behavior in a high crime area, thought the pair were casing the place for a robbery. The car was stopped and things went South. The explanation of what was going on with the diabetic were ignored. Eventually the truth came out and the diabetic was released. He had sustained various injuries in the ensuing fight including a broken bone. He sued. It went to the Supreme Court. He lost.

I point this out only to illustrate that what seems to be a case of brutality in hindsight, may not turn out to actually be excessive force when viewed by a reasonable officer.

The Court stated, " The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."

I am not taking sides in this, merely stating the law.

Eventually, this may well end up in court and a decision made regarding the officers' use of force. If and when that occurs, the use of force standard will be Graham v. Connor.

As to United Airlines and its employees, that's probably a civil matter and I have no expertise in being civil.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I realize that the letter of the law often clashes with perception. 

Here's what the reasonable person perceives: This man was beat up and bloodied so that Untied could get 4 of it's employees to another airport. And why is that? Because they don't value their customers and employ poor logistics.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

I confess to not having closely followed the details of this case. If what you are saying about what United did is correct (and I have no reason to doubt you), it should be interesting to see United's rationale in forcibly removing a paying customer from the plane to load a non-paying passenger. Logic (and perhaps this doesn't apply here) would indicate that, in paying, the doctor would have some rights which would supercede the rights of those who ride for free.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I only know what I've seen and read. Furthermore, he has already been seated. Already United is making changes to its policies suggesting that at least in part not everything is a government policy and they have discretion. Obviously an unknown concept prior to this incident.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Not defending United's approach to resolving this issue, but normally when an airline is transporting crew members to another airport it is to crew a bird that is scheduled for a flight. If the crew doesn't arrive on schedule, a whole lot of paying passengers are going to be inconvenience! United found itself on the proverbial "horns of a dilemma."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Indeed! A dilemma of their own making and of their shortcomings. 

Of course, it's not a dilemma when you can simply call on the power of the state to do your dirty work for you. 

I'm sure you're old enough to remember the Lilly Tomlin character who worked for the phone company and who was rude to customers who called to complain. I'll never forget her refrain, "we're the phone company. We can do anything."


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Not defending United's approach to resolving this issue, but normally when an airline is transporting crew members to another airport it is to crew a bird that is scheduled for a flight. If the crew doesn't arrive on schedule, a whole lot of paying passengers are going to be inconvenience! United found itself on the proverbial "horns of a dilemma."


It is my understanding that the crew of 4 was deadheading to Louisville to take over for another crew who ran out of hours because of delays. It's the commercial aviation version of the butterfly effect.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Browsing through the Cyber news feeds this AM, I noticed articles describing confrontations between passengers and crew members on American A/L and Jet Blue A/L. American had a female passenger who failed to take her seat, while being repeatedly told to do so by a steward and became hysterical when she was removed from the flight and Jet Blue had a female passenger who became belligerent when she was made to turn off her cell phone. I struggle with the assumption that all of the employees on so many of our airlines can be so lacking in people skills and wonder...is this just additional evidence of the widespread, ongoing loss of civility on the part of society in general? Have we all become or are we rapidly becoming varying degrees of A-holes? :icon_scratch:


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

tda003 said:


> Eventually, this may well end up in court and a decision made regarding the officers' use of force. If and when that occurs, the use of force standard will be Graham v. Connor.


Having changed their policies to ensure that this will almost certainly not happen again in future a court case is the last thing United needs, right or wrong they will loose in the media and with the public.

Settle quickly and quietly.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Browsing through the Cyber news feeds this AM, I noticed articles describing confrontations between passengers and crew members on American A/L and Jet Blue A/L. American had a female passenger who failed to take her seat, while being repeatedly told to do so by a steward and became hysterical when she was removed from the flight and Jet Blue had a female passenger who became belligerent when she was made to turn off her cell phone. I struggle with the assumption that all of the employees on so many of our airlines can be so lacking in people skills and wonder...is this just additional evidence of the widespread, ongoing loss of civility on the part of society in general? Have we all become or are we rapidly becoming varying degrees of A-holes? :icon_scratch:


Opportunistic people smell blood in the water. They know that airlines don't want negative press or, worse, lawsuits. So, they act like complete "A-holes" to provoke harsh responses in order to garner media exposure and public sympathy. After the video goes viral, they turn that into settlement cash.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

culverwood said:


> Having changed their policies to ensure that this will almost certainly not happen again in future a court case is the last thing United needs, right or wrong they will loose in the media and with the public.
> 
> Settle quickly and quietly.


It will be yet another settlement that the city of Chicago will have to make because of police misconduct. That will be separate from any settlement Mr. Dao reaches with United.

The police need to use more discretion as to when they will actually board a plane. If the passenger is endangering himself, passengers, the crew or the plane that's one thing. This was never a case that should have involved the police.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Viewed another video this AM showing an American Airlines passenger chasing an American Airline's pilot through the Kansas City airport, shoving the pilot, knocking a cellphone from his hands, and following the crew member out of the airport doors, at which point a police officer took the passenger into custody. What in the hell is happening to us? Have we all colectively lost our minds? :icon_scratch: :crazy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Viewed another video this AM showing an American Airlines passenger chasing an American Airline's pilot through the Kansas City airport, shoving the pilot, knocking a cellphone from his hands, and following the crew member out of the airport doors, at which point a police officer took the passenger into custody. What in the hell is happening to us? Have we all colectively lost our minds? :icon_scratch: :crazy:


Sounds like a safe bet. 

Common courtesy has become so uncommon that people remark upon it. I make a particular point of extending courtesy to anyone who is assisting me in a service capacity, including youngsters. While interacting with a high school girl working as a checker in the supermarket, she remarked that she liked my manners, and she wished males her age displayed them towards her as well.

In the state of New Jersey I'm convinced that stop signs have become optional, and the use of directional signals prohibited. Both simple hallmarks of courtesy. (And sanity!) While living in Europe many years ago, I learned that flashing your high beams (Once!) to traffic in front of you was the international signal that you wished to pass. And darned if the NJ Legislature in its vast wisdom didn't subsequently outlaw this useful signal some time ago as "aggressive" driving, this intent now instead being signaled by riding 3" off the rear bumper of the vehicle ahead.

When and where I grew up courtesy was learned simply; be courteous or duck! :eek2: Comical, but no joke as there were more than enough individuals willing and able to perpetrate mayhem upon your person. Big and tough? No problem, there's always someone else bigger and tougher, and if not, some combination of such individuals who will derive significant pleasure from raining retribution down upon your head. Not a pleasant situation, but one which does tend to encourage thoughtful and courteous responses in individuals of whom you might otherwise never expect it.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Viewed another video this AM showing an American Airlines passenger chasing an American Airline's pilot through the Kansas City airport, shoving the pilot, knocking a cellphone from his hands, and following the crew member out of the airport doors, at which point a police officer took the passenger into custody. What in the hell is happening to us? Have we all colectively lost our minds? :icon_scratch: :crazy:


I agree, What the hell has happened to us?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

eagle, Howard,

I agree. There seems to be an inordinate amount of rage in this country. It almost seems as if folks are going crazy every time things don't go the way they want and I'm not just talking politically.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

tda003 said:


> eagle, Howard,
> 
> I agree. There seems to be an inordinate amount of rage in this country. It almost seems as if folks are going crazy every time things don't go the way they want and I'm not just talking politically.


and also we've become so PC it's not even funny anymore, we've also become so sensitive to almost everything that offends us would irk us.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Apparently, American just experienced an episode of violence in a confrontation between a passenger and a flight attendant. The episode was partially filmed, but shows nothing about what led up to it. It seems the attendant was attempting to take a baby stroller away from the woman who wouldn't give it up. I'm guessing this must have been in connection with carry on rules, likely because of the stroller's size and overheard storage space. I won't comment on the violence involved, but question why anyone would assume that their desires supersede those of others, in this case taking up limited storage space.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

tda003 said:


> Apparently, American just experienced an episode of violence in a confrontation between a passenger and a flight attendant. The episode was partially filmed, but shows nothing about what led up to it. It seems the attendant was attempting to take a baby stroller away from the woman who wouldn't give it up. I'm guessing this must have been in connection with carry on rules, likely because of the stroller's size and overheard storage space. I won't comment on the violence involved, but question why anyone would assume that their desires supersede those of others, in this case taking up limited storage space.


Complete and utter BS!!!! YOU DO NOT BRING A STROLLER ON A COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE!!!! I have always checked strollers at the gate and they will be waiting for you when you disembark. Why is it so damn important that the stroller be in the passenger cabin? Not to mention her massive backpack. And the cowering airlines gives in and upgrades this crying bimbo to first class. FOLLOW THE RULES!!!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I have to agree in this case and even better, the crew was able to resolve the issue without calling the cops. 

Airlines just shouldn't even allow carry on luggage anymore. It takes forever to board and deplane and most people end up with carry on that is way too big. One's personal item and that's it. Of course, the airlines need to make sure that luggage is not misplaced and/or lost. 

Whoever the guy was that got up and made the fuss was in the wrong. Whatever was going on surely was not his concern so instead of playing at Sir Knight, shut up and plant your butt in the seat.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

American Airlines suspends worker at the center of an on-board altercation caught on video
https://www.cnbc.com/id/104419756

Note the difference in the corporate response compared to a week ago.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> American Airlines suspends worker at the center of an on-board altercation caught on video
> https://www.cnbc.com/id/104419756
> 
> Note the difference in the corporate response compared to a week ago.


Knee-jerk response to a completely different stimulus. This will open flood gates that are not going to be easy to close.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ perhaps there will be some chaos for the short term but in the end the system will find some stasis point different from what it is now. 

I'm curious as to something; how was she able to make it all the way down the jetway with the stroller only to be stopped at the plane's entrance?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^^
I suspect it is a direct result of airline and airport employees becoming afraid to do their jobs...and then one does her job and gets suspended! Sad, but it happens.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

One thing I know is that when one is in the business of dealing with the public, things like this are bound to happen. 

Again, this sounds like a situation where the system broke down, albeit not with the same earth shattering effects as the United affair. 

This is the problem with large, bureaucratic organizations. There is no incentive to think creatively or to vary one's response depending on the situation. Every eventuality is dealt with in a similar manner. 

If in fact the gate agents failed in their job to not allow the stroller down the jet way then therein lies the problem. In fact, I'm assuming at some point, too, if they checked their bags in, someone at bag check should have told them about the stroller.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I'm curious as to something; how was she able to make it all the way down the jetway with the stroller only to be stopped at the plane's entrance?


When I flew with a stroller, they would let you use it right up until you stepped on the plane. It would then be placed where they store wheelchairs and other equipment (different places on different types of aircraft). I never ran into flight personnel who were not extremely helpful in regard to stroller storage. Flight attendants have always done an awesome job for me on the multitudes of flights that I have been on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ As someone without kids, I've never even paid attention to strollers and what happens with them.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ As someone without kids, I've never even paid attention to strollers and what happens with them.


Same protocol for car seats, strollers, wheel chairs, and walkers. You give them up right before you board and they are waiting for you as soon as you disembark. They are not stored with the rest of the checked luggage.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

My thoughts when I first heard about this episode where, "Why the he!! did the airline allow this twit to get that far with the stroller? This sort of thing should be handled prior to boarding. She should not have been allowed to board the plane with that stroller to begin with. AND ole dumba$$, should have stayed belted in his seat and shut up.

I hope the employee is on paid administrative leave. He shouldn't have been placed in the position of having to wrestle some idiot inside the plane to enforce the airline's (not his) rules.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

tda003 said:


> My thoughts when I first heard about this episode where, "Why the he!! did the airline allow this twit to get that far with the stroller? This sort of thing should be handled prior to boarding. She should not have been allowed to board the plane with that stroller to begin with. AND ole dumba$$, should have stayed belted in his seat and shut up.
> 
> I hope the employee is on paid administrative leave. He shouldn't have been placed in the position of having to wrestle some idiot inside the plane to enforce the airline's (not his) rules.


What I would like to know is why the hell do so many people on the Internet have such passionate views about things they know nothing about?

https://www.dallasnews.com/business...-flight-attendant-passengers-video-goes-viral


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> Same protocol for car seats, strollers, wheel chairs, and walkers. You give them up right before you board and they are waiting for you as soon as you disembark.


Regarding a folding stroller, not if a flight attendant instructs you otherwise.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business...-flight-attendant-passengers-video-goes-viral


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> What I would like to know is why the hell do so many people on the Internet have such passionate views about things they know nothing about?
> 
> https://www.dallasnews.com/business...-flight-attendant-passengers-video-goes-viral


It may be cold comfort but I am often quite similarly inclined out here in the real world too.

:redface:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shmitter schmatter! Let's get to the heart of the issue. All this wouldn't have happened if a man had not been doing a woman's job. 

Being a flight attendant is a woman's job. Put a man in there and he'll automatically feel emasculated and emotionally edgy. Probably that way anyway and why he couldn't make it in a man's profession. Stuff like this is bound to happen.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Mike, I'm simply fed up with the concept of a large number of people who feel that they have some sort of right to do what they want regardless of the rules (or laws) with impunity and regardless of the imposition it imposes others. If people are allowed to choose what rules or laws that they wish to obey, then there really aren't any rules or laws.

The stroller rule is supposed to apply to everyone boarding the plane including those who don't like that rule applied to them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ We don't know the genesis of the issue. It may not have been about giving up the stroller. It may have had more to do with the airline attendants reaction and how he took the stroller. 

If there's an actual account of how all of this happened I'd love to read about it or see it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

tda003 said:


> Mike, I'm simply fed up with the concept of a large number of people who feel that they have some sort of right to do what they want regardless of the rules (or laws) with impunity and regardless of the imposition it imposes others. If people are allowed to choose what rules or laws that they wish to obey, then there really aren't any rules or laws.
> 
> The stroller rule is supposed to apply to everyone boarding the plane including those who don't like that rule applied to them.


We are in complete agreement on the principle, but it is important to consider the principle in light of the facts, which include:

-- a statement released from the airline that indicated the stroller "rule" was not an absolute one. A flight attendant friend confirmed to me that in practice strollers were occasionally permitted on board depended on the size and collapsibility of the particular stroller and the space available; 
-- a statement from the mother in question to the effect that she was told by another attendant to bring the stroller on board to check for room and return it if no room was available; and 
-- statements from multiple witnesses (not counting the mother or the gentleman passenger in question) who said the flight attendant in question was unnecessarily physical and threatening with both the woman, one of her children, and at least two other passengers.

Now, these "facts" are hardly complete, which is why I am not ready to condemn the flight attendant. We just don't know the entire story, which is why I am urging everyone to just stop jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ We don't know the genesis of the issue. It may not have been about giving up the stroller. It may have had more to do with the airline attendants reaction and how he took the stroller.
> 
> If there's an actual account of how all of this happened I'd love to read about it or see it.


I've looked, but don't think a complete objective account is available. The single most comprehensive report is the one I linked.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think we need to understand the difference laws and arbitrary corporate "rules".


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I think we need to understand the difference between laws and arbitrary corporate "rules".


I don't quite see the relevance in this case. Certainly a rule designed to ensure that as many passengers as possible have room to store a carry-on is not arbitrary, especially if that rule permits flight attendants to admit exceptions in appropriate cases.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Sorry, I did not check my grammar before hitting reply. 

What I meant to say is that there is a difference BETWEEN laws and rules imposed arbitrarily by a corporation. 

This seems to have been another over-reaction to the enforcement of an arbitrary rule perhaps on the part of the airline, perhaps on the part of the passenger or perhaps both. 

It was in reference to TDA's frustration. Like I said, we don't know how this started or what transpired before the video started to roll.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I find it very hard to believe that a flight attendant would ever threaten a child.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ And I find it hard to believe that a grown man finds professional satisfaction handing out cans of pop and bags of peanuts and then gathers garbage. 

He may not have intentionally meant to do anything, but probably acted irresponsibly and irrationally. Again, who knows. No one knows what led up to it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> I find it very hard to believe that a flight attendant would ever threaten a child.


The accounts don't suggest an overt threat directed toward the child. Instead, they indicate that the attendant almost struck the child -- accidentally -- when he "violently" took the stroller from its mother.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ And I find it hard to believe that a grown man finds professional satisfaction handing out cans of pop and bags of peanuts and then gathers garbage.
> 
> He may not have intentionally meant to do anything, but probably acted irresponsibly and irrationally. Again, who knows. No one knows what led up to it.


But a grown woman could find such professional satisfaction?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> The accounts don't suggest an overt threat directed toward the child. Instead, they indicate that the attendant almost struck the child -- accidentally -- when he "violently" took the stroller from its mother.


Again... I question their use of the term "violently." That is a matter of perception.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> Again... I question their use of the term "violently." That is a matter of perception.


Agreed, which is why I used quotation marks, but at this point the only witnesses on record seem to share that perception. That said, who knows what we will learn tomorrow.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Put too many rats in a cage, and start shaking the cage, and they tend to behave badly.

Airline flight has gone from being a civil, somewhat luxurious experience to a take-no-prisoners, every man for themselves exercise in survival. When I would fly 50 years ago passengers comported themselves as ladies and gentlemen and flight attendants were gracious servers. Often now the passengers behave as rude and unruly prisoners, and sometimes the flight attendants as bullying thugs. The world is as we choose to live in it. The key word being *choose*. The world doesn't happen by accident, we create it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> But a grown woman could find such professional satisfaction?


Professional satisfaction is a fine thing, but it is not the chief motivator for the vast majority of workers -- who get up and go to work at least five days a week chiefly for the personal satisfaction of supporting their families. Some even accept indignities as part of the equation, and those people, in my opinion, are truly the Biblical salt of the earth.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Professional satisfaction is a fine thing, but it is not the chief motivator for the vast majority of workers -- who get up and go to work at least five days a week for the personal satisfaction of supporting their families. Some even accept indignities as part of the equation, and those people, in my opinion, are the Biblical salt of the earth.


I very much agree with you here Mike.

SG, however, has indicated that some menial work seems to be better suited to females.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Take a look at the flight crew and most of the cabin attendants are women. Why is that?

I have no idea what women seek from work or if they value the same things that men do from work. Why is it that more women go into certain fields than men? How many make kindgergarten teachers do we notice? When we see a male nurse, don't we take notice? 

Being a flight attendant is a woman's occupation because the work force is made up primarily of women, and has been so since the inception of commercial air travel. 

When I see a man working as a flight attendant my first thought is that for one reason or another, other professions and occupations were closed to him. His choices had been narrowed by either external or internal causes. 

But enough of that, it sounds like this guy overreacted because he is likely emotionally unstable. Notice in the same video how the captain is just standing there cool, calm and collected and does the absolute minimum to diffuse the situation. Yet help to diffuse it he does.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

You have no idea what women seek from work? 

May I ask you a personal question? When you attend worship is it in a mosque by any chance?

I quite understand if you would prefer not to answer and, if so, promise to refrain from pursuing the enquiry further.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Nope. But women seek different things from work then men do. Men are defined by what they do. Women are not. Those are just the rules of the game. 

Women get to make choices and balance things. Men don't have that luxury. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That is very kind of you to be so accommodating SG, thank you. 

Truly though, I am unable to fathom your thrust. What choices and balance do women have access to that men do not? What defines women?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Women generally aren't defined by, nor do they define themselves by, the career they have chosen. They don't have that type of pressure on them. This, regardless of such artifice that modern feminists would have us think that women want or welcome high pressure jobs while at the same time being able to manage a family life that they desire.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am the last person to look toward for defence of third wave feminism. In fact I believe that I have openly mocked such vacuous nonsense on this forum twice in the last week alone.

However, because women are capable of childbirth does not mean that it defines them nor that their aspirations might not be elsewhere. The glorious option of trolley dolly notwithstanding.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Perhaps not. At the same time, such choices do not carry the same stigma as they do with men.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Take a look at the flight crew and most of the cabin attendants are women. Why is that?


For the exact same reason that most elementary school teachers are women. Flight attendants and early-childhood educators are used to dealing with the same people... whiny complainers that are prone to tantrums (age is irrelevant).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That is circular logic, is it not?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> That is circular logic, is it not?


I actually wrote a paper on "circulus in probando" for a philosophy class.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I thought that on most vocational fronts we had perhaps put away the traditional gender stereotypes, but alas, that seems not the case. I suspect a male flight attendants motivation(s) to become such is(are) similar to those of the female flight attendants. Specifically, you take the rather mundane collection of responsibilities performed by the waitstaff of your favorite diner and perform same in a metal tube traveling at several hundred miles an hour, tens of thousands of feet above the earth and load in an array of life saving activities to be employed in case of an airborne emergency, and you have a much more exotic and romanticized profession. I also know of at least one flight attendant who was no longer medically qualified to be in the cockpit and becoming a flight attendant provided the opportunity to continue flying, at least in some capacity! Sounds reasonably manly to me. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ they are only stereotypes if we choose to believe that men and women are the same and value things the same. 

The occupation of a flight attendant has very limited upward mobility. The best one can hope for is to get to bid on the preferred routes and overall schedule. Otherwise, there are few other paths for advancement. One has to ask himself why a man would choose such a profession unless of course his choices were limited due to extrinsic and instrinsic reasons. 

In fact, his reaction to the incident and, if true, the incident itself and his behavior that led to it suggests that he's overly emotional and cannot control himself. Hence, he cannot make it in a man's world. 

Sorry, but in our society that's just the plain truth.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ they are only stereotypes if we choose to believe that men and women are the same and value things the same.
> 
> The occupation of a flight attendant has very limited upward mobility. The best one can hope for is to get to bid on the preferred routes and overall schedule. Otherwise, there are few other paths for advancement. One has to ask himself why a man would choose such a profession unless of course his choices were limited due to extrinsic and instrinsic reasons.
> 
> ...


There is an implicit (if not explicit) suggestion here that women are "overly emotional and cannot control themselves".

That may have been the *ahem* 'plain truth' of society once upon a time.

If only we hadn't given the trollops the vote eh, SG?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ it's obvious he doesn't even have to temperment to work as a flight attendant.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

People work at a job for a lot of different reasons. "Upward mobility" does not have to be the motivator and certainly not be the most significant reason for a persons choice of jobs. Why is it any less manly for a guy to work as a flight attendant than it is for that same guy to work as a waiter in a nice restaurant. Maybe he likes to fly or just likes to travel and see different places. There are a shocking number of folks out there whose lives are not career driven. 

And yes, we are dealing with stereotypes. Considering the matter in question and dealing gender specifically with the question, not all men, nor all women are emotionally suited to be a flight attendant... and that's Ok. But then, neither are all men or all women suited to serve on combat aircrews or missile launch crews. Way back when I served on combat crews we had only we most manly men doing the job, but today we have a mix of women and men flying our first line fighters and bombers and serving on our ICBM launch crews. Just my thoughts


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

A robust, no-nonsense approach would be a slightly understated way to describe the treatment the unfortunate United Airlines passenger suffered. However, within the confines of the aircraft or vessel, passengers are under a duty to obey the captain, regardless of their own estimations as to the importance of their journey. Presumably he had been asked politely to disembark, before the airline descended to strong-arm intervention.

A rather similar incident is reported today, in which a Mr Bantu was ejected from a British Airways aircraft, mid-flight, onto a small island in the Azores, having refused to vacate a business class seat for which he had not paid. The report notes that he was a quite elderly man in the grip of diabetes, but his truculent defiance was nevertheless dealt with very firmly. Airlines are clearly highly fearful of permitting the smallest incident of disobedience - possibly with good reason.



> *BA tied up and offloaded 'diabetic passenger' at remote military base over business class row*


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...tish-couple-military-base-business-class-row/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ or they could have chosen to allow the poor SOB to remain seated. 

Sounds like BA created the incident and then patted themselves on the back when they resolved it. Much the same way as United. 

I wonder, if the captain orders me to drop my pants and parade up and down the cabin in adult diapers while sucking my thumb, does that still qualify as a valid instruction? After all, it is my duty to obey the captain, regardless of how ridiculous the command may be.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ or they could have chosen to allow the poor SOB to remain seated.
> 
> Sounds like BA created the incident and then patted themselves on the back when they resolved it. Much the same way as United.
> 
> I wonder, if the captain orders me to drop my pants and parade up and down the cabin in adult diapers while sucking my thumb, does that still qualify as a valid instruction? After all, it is my duty to obey the captain, regardless of how ridiculous the command may be.


Valid or not, nevertheless, it has all the hallmarks of an instruction that, were it to be enforced as punishment for anti-social passenger behaviour, may very well limit the incidence of slobbishness (and the myriad attendant defects of character) we civilised fellows must endure at 35,000 feet.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ or they could have chosen to allow the poor SOB to remain seated.


He paid for an economy seat. He should remain in an economy seat. If he was worried about how the space constraints would affect his medical condition, he should have booked a business-class seat. He is not entitled to an upgrade.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"I was treated like a slave". 

#BlackFlightsMatter


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> "I was treated like a slave".
> 
> #BlackFlightsMatter


Now THAT is funny!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ or they could have chosen to allow the poor SOB to remain seated.
> 
> Sounds like BA created the incident and then patted themselves on the back when they resolved it. Much the same way as United.
> 
> I wonder, if the captain orders me to drop my pants and parade up and down the cabin in adult diapers while sucking my thumb, does that still qualify as a valid instruction? After all, it is my duty to obey the captain, regardless of how ridiculous the command may be.


If it came to a court of law, the captain's authority would most likely be found to extend only to demands for which there is a valid reason.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ so the captain's authority has limits.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

From what I've read, the only information about the passenger's condition, comes from the passenger himself. He may well be all that he says, but, if so, he must have known about his circulation problems prior to booking his economy class seat. Additionally, there seems to be no mention of his informing the crew prior to his appropriating a seat for which he had not paid or offering to pay for an upgrade.

I emphasize with his stated condition as I, too, am an elderly diabetic. I don't, however, consider that as a valid reason to arbitrarily upgrade myself to more luxurious surroundings at the airline's expense. He, like I, apparently knew of his condition before hand and should have, at a minimum, informed the appropriate person(s) well prior to the flight. They may even have been willing to accommodate him.

If I am allowed to ignore rules or, for that matter, laws, with impunity, then in practice, there are no rules or laws.

I was gratified to read that the pilot landed the plane prior to ejecting the passengers. How far is the swim from there?.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tda003 said:


> ...
> 
> If I am allowed to ignore rules or, for that matter, laws, with impunity, then in practice, there are no rules or laws.


That is the point - there are occasions when it is necessary to submit to authority, and better to do so with good grace.



> I was gratified to read that the pilot landed the plane prior to ejecting the passengers. How far is the swim from there?.


Yes, they were quite humane.

Mr Bantu complained about being humiliated but the restraints and handcuffs may well have been necessary for the peace and comfort of his fellow passengers.

Neither of the incidents would put me off flying with either airline, though I don't think I would entrust United Airlines with any of my animals after the most recent incident involving a giant rabbit.



> *BUNNY'S LAST HOP
> **United Airlines bunny death riddle deepens as airline reveals Simon collapsed while waiting for his connecting US flight to Kansas*


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Langham said:


> Neither of the incidents would put me off flying with either airline, though I don't think I would entrust United Airlines with any of my animals after the most recent incident involving a giant rabbit.


Now, you are just splitting hares.


----------

