More dick moves and it's not even political- United Airlines

[mxnerd]

Wow! This is horrible. The doctor should sue United to the extreme.

Here's how often airlines involuntarily bump passengers

 

[theeedude]

I wouldn't say it's not political. These airlines didn't the market positions and regulations that allow them to treat their customers this way by accident.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wouldn't say it's not political. These airlines didn't the market positions and regulations that allow them to treat their customers this way by accident.

Regulations don't work quite that way. Any entity can do what they will unless forbidden. There was never a regulation that I am aware of that says airlines can't do what happened. It's wrong but many news sites are saying the poor guy is SOL. I hope he has a good attorney which can find a way around it. UA's response to the incident has been ridiculously inadequate.

 

[NTMBK]

Complete bullshit. Don't book more people than you have seats, you cheap bastards.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Complete bullshit. Don't book more people than you have seats, you cheap bastards.

They do that because in most cases, at least a few people don't show up.

However, in this case, it is even worse than that.

They had enough seats for all of the paying customers. But, they did not have enough seats for their own staff that wanted a free ride.

So, they assaulted a passenger to make room, and then accused the passenger of being belligerent.

 

[NTMBK]

They do that because in most cases, at least a few people don't show up.

However, in this case, it is even worse than that.

They had enough seats for all of the paying customers. But, they did not have enough seats for their own staff that wanted a free ride.

So, they assaulted a passenger to make room, and then accused the passenger of being belligerent.

If people want to waste their money and miss their flight, that's their prerogative. Doesn't mean that the airlines should dick around their customers because they saw another opportunity to maximise profit.

 

[sdifox]

im thinking $millions$ in bad PR/goodwill lost.

didn't they also have a minor PR nitemare last month with not letting on 2 females because the gate agent thought their attire was too sexy? (Leggings/yoga pants)

That one is not the airline's issue. They were flying on employee family tix and they stipulate a dress code for people using those tix. Stupid rule, but it is the company's (discounted?) ticket, their rule.

 

[K1052]

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Don't see how United can be sued for the actions of Airport Security personnel.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-removed-from-united-flight-prompting-outcry

The Chicago Department of Aviation, meanwhile, says the actions of the security officers were "not condoned by the Department" and that one individual has been placed on leave pending a review.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Don't see how United can be sued for the actions of Airport Security personnel.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-removed-from-united-flight-prompting-outcry

That's a really shitty weasel out of responsibility. The airline (or at least those on the airplane) called for the security to come, and one way or another the airline (along with others) pay for those security officers to be there. 'We don't condone of that activity' doesn't fly when it's in the other direction, why should it here?

 

[Genx87]

United, time to pay up. The CEO is clueless and praising his employees for doing a terrible job that went viral. Sadly if this asshole ever gets fired he will still have a nice multi million dollar compensation package.

 

[DarthKyrie]

If people want to waste their money and miss their flight, that's their prerogative. Doesn't mean that the airlines should dick around their customers because they saw another opportunity to maximise profit.

To be fair some people end up missing their flights because of the TSA.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's a really shitty weasel out of responsibility. The airline (or at least those on the airplane) called for the security to come, and one way or another the airline (along with others) pay for those security officers to be there. 'We don't condone of that activity' doesn't fly when it's in the other direction, why should it here?

Even though the airline called airport security they have no responsibility for the actions of security. Chicago taxpayers are the one's that pay for the airport security officers.

 

[Genx87]

Even though the airline called airport security they have no responsibility for the actions of security. Chicago taxpayers are the one's that pay for the airport security officers.

What did United think was going to happen when they called security?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Even though the airline called airport security they have no responsibility for the actions of security. Chicago taxpayers are the one's that pay for the airport security officers.

They called security for the specific intent of forcibly removing the person, since asking him nicely didn't work. I suppose the airline called airport security to have a more intense talk with him?

Maybe they didn't think they would beat the man, but they knew they were calling in the muscle.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, they called security however, they bear no responsibilities for the actions of the security officers. Don't see how the person has any grounds for suing the airline for the actions of a third party.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, they called security however, they bear no responsibilities for the actions of the security officers. Don't see how the person has any grounds for suing the airline for the actions of a third party.

Because here's how this is going to go otherwise:
TSA will announce that the actions of the officers was out of line, and they were administratively punished. Not their fault.
Airline states that they aren't responsible for the actions of the TSA.
Folks on the airplane state they didn't know this was going to happen.
Officers that actually beat the man get a slap on the wrist, a week or two of administrative leave, paid on the taxpayer's dime.
This man continues to have had his face beaten in, for the financial benefit of a company, with no recompense.

This is the airline's ballgame, and they called in a ringer. I *wish* this would go to a jury panel.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, they called security however, they bear no responsibilities for the actions of the security officers. Don't see how the person has any grounds for suing the airline for the actions of a third party.

The security officer was asked to forcibly remove the passenger. The security officer did their job, from what I've seen.

The fault is with the order he was given; expecting a security guard to exhibit better PR and conflict resolution skills than management is just fucking silly, and so therefore the fault lies with the management. Anything else is giving management a free pass to use force (make sure you get someone else to do it though!) whenever a situation doesn't go their way.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So should a brick and mortar call the police to arrest a shoplifter, should said store be responsible for the actions of police officers responding to the call?

 

[Genx87]

So should a brick and mortar call the police to arrest a shoplifter, should said store be responsible for the actions of police officers responding to the call?

Was this guy breaking a law by taking his legally purchased seat? Apples and Oranges.

 

[mikeymikec]

So should a brick and mortar call the police to arrest a law-abiding customer that they attempted to screw over, should said store be responsible for the actions of police officers responding to the call?

I fixed your example for you.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Was this guy breaking a law by taking his legally purchased seat? Apples and Oranges.

Obviously you've never read the federal regulations concerning overbooking when purchasing an airline ticket. I've been bumped a few times from an overbooked flight in the past 30 years, they've always compensated me very well including putting me up in a decent hotel close to the airport.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I fixed your example for you.

Again, you need to read the federal regulations concerning overbooking of flights.
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Again, you need to read the federal regulations concerning overbooking of flights.
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

Do you accept the premise that legal doesn't always mean right?

 

[Genx87]

Obviously you've never read the federal regulations concerning overbooking when purchasing an airline ticket. I've been bumped a few times from an overbooked flight in the past 30 years, they've always compensated me very well including putting me up in a decent hotel close to the airport.

I have not read it, but understand it. And in no way was this guy breaking the law. Your example was bad.