We’ve all heard about the disgraceful behavior of United Airlines and the Chicago police. I’m getting disgusted by the excuses made in the aftermath.
A few weeks ago, United made the news for kicking two girls off one of their flights because they were wearing leggings. United justified this because there were rules written down for United employees traveling on a pass, so a lot of people said that was OK, then — they were rules, after all, and rules must be obeyed.
Wait, why? Who made this rule, and for what reason? Presumably it’s because they have this corporate image that they want to enforce, so they’ve got this damn stupid rule written down by some prudish busybody — it’s certainly not for an objectively good reason, like safety — and now they insist on enforcing it, pointlessly, even if it is problematic for customers. And yet I saw people just accept the injustice because it was a rule.
Now likewise they have a rule that they can throw paying customers off the plane at the convenience of their employees and at the whim of a random number generator. People are doing the same thing! It’s a rule, therefore United has a right to abuse passengers who aren’t sufficiently obedient. Again, this is not a safety rule (if a passenger is endangering others, then yes, there should be an expectation of obedience and penalties for defying the airline), but one for the convenience of the corporation. They are permitted to act inhumanely in the service of purely capitalist gains.
And people accept that! Some, like Bill O’Reilly, even laugh at the video of the man being bloodied.
I don’t give a flying fuck if somewhere in United’s fine print they have written down that they get to club you senseless if they need your seat — it is an unjust rule because it prioritizes the convenience of an employee over the safety and health and rights of another human being. Having it written down does not make it right, it means that an immoral behavior is formally sanctioned in the corporate culture of United. That makes it worse.
Of course, there is even more heinous justifications. Would you believe journalists have rummaged in the victim’s past to find evidence of misbehavior? He was convicted of using his medical license to abuse prescription drugs in 2004. That’s bad, but not relevant — his punishment was to have his license to practice medicine suspended for ten years, a debt that has been paid. It does not mean that United, or anyone, is justified to punch him in the head any time they feel like it.
I find the callousness of big business disturbing, but find the willingness of too many Americans to condone it even more distressing.
Minor point: United didn’t actually kick anyone off a flight for wearing leggings. They asked two girls to change into something else before getting on the flight. The girls changed, and were let on the flight. Someone else in the line, not catching the bit about the rule only applying to people travelling on the United employee pass, then assumed that it was a rule for all passengers and started tweeting about it.
Regardless of how unreasonable a rule it is, no-one was kicked off a flight over it.
None of which has any bearing on their treatment of the doctor they threw off the plane — especially considering that they resorted to violence rather than offering the maximum compensation required by law ($1350) to people who volunteer to change flights.
The Rule of Law is a strong, strong koolaid. It can be laced with arsenic and still people line up around the block to slam it back.
United wanted the seat back and they offered money for it.
“Is $400 enough?” –No, thanks, the passengers said.
“Is $800 enough?” –No, thanks, the passengers said.
Then, rather than doing the rational thing and increasing their offering price they offer until it equaled what the seat was in fact WORTH TO THEM, they decide to steal the right to a seat that the was at that point the property of another person.
If they really believed in Capitalism, they’d have offered an opportunity for passengers to auction off their seats. They aren’t capitalists, they’re thieves.
Over at Affinity (here at FtB), another commentator pointed out this worthwhile column in the Grauniad, Thanks to United Airlines, is flying while Asian something to fear? (“The forcible removal of an Asian man from an overbooked flight echoes cases of American violence against people of colour who defy authority”).
He wasn’t descended from the heavens in a column of light while a celestial chorus sang— he was no angel.
Anyway, in all seriousness…
They overbooked a flight and then dragged someone off it to make room? Seriously? Why not find someone else to give up their seat?
And don’t claim the “law” allows them to randomly kick people off. If an airline overbooks, they need to find a bigger plane or hold an auction to find someone to give up their seat voluntarily— at whatever price that might take. No one’s willing to get bumped onto tomorrow’s flight for $1,350? How about $2,000? Anyone willing to get bumped for $2,500? $3,000? $8,000?
Of course the problem is that airlines get away with this because they can. Mergers have left us with four companies who have basically decided that they won’t compete. Most of the largest US airports are dominated by one of them, so consumers in those markets have little or no choice (other than not flying at all). Thanks, free market enthusiasts!
One of the most disgusting arguments I’ve seen being made more than once in comment sections about this incident is that the man was being “childish” by resisting his removal. I don’t think I want to know what kind of childhoods those people had.
“He who does his duty in his own household will be found righteous in the State also. But if any one transgresses, and does violence to the laws, or thinks to dictate to his rulers, such an one can win no praise from me. No, whomsoever the city may appoint, that man must be obeyed, in little things and great, in just things and unjust; and I should feel sure that one who thus obeys would be a good ruler no less than a good subject, and in the storm of spears would stand his ground where he was set, loyal and dauntless at his comrade’s side.
But disobedience is the worst of evils. This it is that ruins cities; this makes homes desolate; by this, the ranks of allies are broken into head-long rout; but, of the lives whose course is fair, the greater part owes safety to obedience.”
Creon, Sophocles’ Antigone, 441BC.
Another column in the Granuiad (also see @4) discusses similar points, America’s airlines are shameless. But United has just set a new low.
Snicker†, United Airlines shares plummet after passenger dragged from plane (“Shares plummeted Tuesday, wiping close to $1bn off the holding company’s value, after a man was violently removed from a flight by aviation police”). That might get some attention, depending on how the
executivecrook’s pay packages are set up.† Yes, this sort of “market” reaction is unhelpful to people whose pension funds (as an example) are invested in the stricken shares.
One comment to the story how this is a result of “overbooking, was the smug response, “overbooking will probably no longer be a problem for United” *smirk*
It is conceivable that the airline may have been desperate for a passenger to comply to their need to transport personnel from one airport to another (I was on a flight that was delayed waiting for such personnel to arrive).
To call in “enforcers” to violently remove a passenger and then publish a notpology explaining the incident. is unforgivable.
They are also glossing over his motivation for objecting. He wasn’t just a jerk, holding out for more money. Initial story said he was a doctor with a medical appt. for which he wanted to remain punctual.
aarrgghh
I sincerely hopes he lawyers up and brings a significant suit against United to they become legally bound.
sheisse
?
slithey tove: From one rendition of this story, I read that the doctor was about to get on the phone with his lawyer when he got beaten up.
I suspect a bit of ageism as well as “racial profiling” going on. Given he was 69 and light of build. They though he would be the easiest to drag off with no injury nor damages. Smashing his face on adjacent armrest with no attention afterward, puts them fully in the “thugs” category. No matter how verbally obnoxious he might have been. Physical violence is always uncalled for (with certain exceptions, if you know what I’m referring to (think alt-right advocate incident) )
re 12:
good 4 him. here’s hopin. sheesh
Kreator @7: On top of that, the number of times I read people describe him as “throwing a tantrum” was mind-blowing.
The worst take was one comment on another side who put out the possibility that the victim was “mentally handicapped” because of the way he acted.
And the ads will write themselves. “Southwest Airlines – we beat up the competition, not you!”
Perhaps the airlines need to remember what happened to “the phone company.”
And the $400 or $800 United was offering wasn’t even real money, just vouchers to fly with them again. Now that’s a real incentive, amirite?
Hi,went and had a ganger at what our friends at worldnetdaily have to say about it ,there is a link to Daily fail online .
They both bring up the poor man’s past .
Also worth noting: the man was, uh, escorted off the plane not by United employees but by police. To Protect and Serve [corporate interests at the expense of individual liberties]!
But wait! If he sues and it goes to the Supreme Court, we now have a justice on there (Gorsuch) who said that A TRUCK DRIVER MUST STAY AND DIE WITH HIS TRUCK rather that disobey company policy. In his 5-4 decision, I am sure that Justice Gorsuch will point out that the passenger is lucky, as the Police had the authority to execute him for disobeying corporate policy. Justice Thomas would concur, but add that such execution would take place only after such beatings and taser-torturing render the execution a mercy.
Holy fuck, you guys are in trouble.
An airline must accept that relying on cancellations freeing up seats is a gamble. Therefore,
Simple solution #1
1) Any employees that are actually vital should not rely on chance, but should instead have seats reserved for them. Yes, this means the flight will be able to accept fewer paying customers.
2) If there are still non-vital staff that need a seat, go through the incentive escalation to tempt paying customers off the flight voluntarily. Keep going up the incentive ladder, rather than stopping halfway and calling cops.
3) If the top of the legally required incentive ladder has been reached and too few customers accepted, either
a- voluntarily increase the incentives beyond what the law requires until enough seats are free, or
b- accept the fact that some of the non-vital staff will have to miss this flight and catch a later one.
Corollary to 3)b: if that staffer misses some of their shift time, or even entire shifts, do not punish that person. Pay the person in full and accept that some losses are inevitable when relyin on a gamble.
Simple solution #2:
Reserve seating for all staff that need to travel. This means selling fewer seats.
What still amazes me about the whole thing is that it is legal for an airline to overbook in the first place. Seriously, they are claiming a legal right to sell more seats on the plane than they actually have, then reserve the right (and with the law to back them up) to evict someone who has already bought that seat for the flight if it is not convenient for the corporation to honor their commitment. If you did this with most goods or services, you would be committing fraud. If I were to advertise that I had 100 cars for sale, but then accepted payment from 110 people for those cars and “randomly” refused to deliver cars to 10 of them (while offering them “vouchers” for a car at some point in the future) I would be arrested and charged with a felony. But an airline can do the exact equivalent of this and not only not be guilty of a crime, but have the full backing of law enforcement to force a paying customer to accept what the corporation wishes to do.
How is that even allowed under our system of laws?
In @10, commenting on the stock valuation losing about $1bn, I said “That might get some attention, depending on how the
executivecrook’s pay packages are set up.”It has, United Airlines CEO tries softer apology after company’s stock nosedives:
I presume the the crooked scumbag is referring to in the last quote above is his pay packet being affected. The will therefore include some lawyer-assisted shenanigans further isolating his “job” and pay from the costumers, employees, and other so-called “stakeholders” in the obviously failed company.
This is brilliant! Jimmy Kimmel savages United Airlines in parody ad (video): “[…] Jimmy Kimmel reacted to the controversy on his ABC show Monday with a fake United commercial that showed a flight attendant armed with brass knuckles”.
And who can forget United Breaks Guitars? Corporate heroes will paper over the cracks once again and within a year hardly any regular customer will remember the incident.
The original (well, inspiration) was possibly Tom Paxton’s Thank You, Republic Airlines.
I’ve had enough family that worked at United to have plenty to dislike them for. And this was that last straw. I’m not flying with them anymore (I typically fly whatever’s cheapest).
That said, accuracy is important. A few points that it seams some of the other commenters don’t know or fully appreciate.
1. United has had a dress-code for employee and ‘buddy’ passes forever. As a child, many years ago, I was required to dress up in, at least, dress slacks, a button up shirt, and a sports coat.
Nearly free airline tickets is a hell of a perk though so we dealt with it. Imagine being middle class and being able to fly half-way across the country to Dinner. Having to dress up isn’t exactly like being subjected to ‘the Spanish Inquisition’ (w/ or w/o The Comfey Chair).
I can’t say I’ve got a lot of sympathy for the girls who were asked to change. EVERY employee knows the rules and they’re actually much less strict then they used to be. They’ll let employees and their guests on in pretty much anything better than Casual clothing. The employee who got the buddy-passes for those girls knew better.. but they thought they could ignore the company policy. From my perspective, they thought they were better than the rules.. which really aren’t that much of an imposition anymore. The fact the girls had clothing in their Carry-Ons that was in compliance should have been a pretty clear indication that UAL wasn’t asking them to dress like good little Baptist girls.
BTW.. the really crazy thing wasn’t that I had to wear dress clothes as a 10 year old to fly.. it was that we had to do it because we were representing the Airline BUT we weren’t allowed to tell paying passengers that we were associated with United Airlines. They preferred to just have inexplicably well dressed children on display flying in Coach.
2. Airlines, like UAL, doesn’t kick paying passengers off for regular employee standby passengers… EVER. Employees and Buddy-Pass passengers are the lowest-run of stand-by passengers.
The only reason reason to displace paying passengers is to move a flight crew to another city where they have to fly a plane out of.
From United perspective. These employees HAD to catch that flight because if they didn’t, another flight would have to be cancelled. Coaxing or Throwing 4 passengers off one flight is the favorable alternative to having to entirely cancel another flight because there was no crew for it.
3. Yes, they should have given these employees seats first and bumped people before they were on the plane.
However, contrary to what another poster asserted.. It’s often not an option to pre-book these types of employee flights (I believe they’re called ‘jump-seats’ rather than regular employee standby). This type of movement of employees often happens last minute, often because of unforeseen problems… like additional last minute flights that go out to make up for cancellations after a storm.. or because another flight crew got sick and had to cancel their next flight.
That all said.. in the spirit of total accuracy (as much as I can be here)… the above are the rules and policy for typical operations. What makes this incident even worse is that the next flight that the jump-seat employees had to get to wasn’t flying out till the next day. Granted, there are rules about rest before flights and limits on how many hours a crew can fly within a given time period but it sounds like these particular bumps didn’t absolutely have to happen. UAL and all the other airlines have agreements in place to put passengers on each other’s flights. I have no doubt this couldn’t have been handled better.
Still.. wanted to make sure everyone knows more than just the superficial instant-outrage side of this.
There were background motivations.. some even generally valid.. that were behind United’s incredibly stupid handling of this particular incident.
Southwest has the perfect ad.
http://i.imgur.com/ag2FFx7.png
It’s quite possibly fake, Southwest Airlines Responds To Alleged Ad Mocking United, Saying We Beat The Competition, Not You. Indeed, some (admittedly quick) searching failed to find anything like, or about, that “ad” at any Southwest-connected site. Also see @15.
As usual lawful evil proves to be the most heinous.
I’m sure someone at Southwest is happy about this incident. They’ve had their fair share of public embarrassments over the last few years.
Did they actually make a random determination? Given United’s reputation, I find it suspicious that the passenger so viciously roughed up was a person of color.
And United Breaks Guitars!
@ #1 jamesredekop:
Since nobody else addressed it, the fact that nobody knew they were flying United Pass is, first of all, irrelevant, as PZ pointed out in the post. Second of all, they were bumped from that flight and had to wait for a later flight, which can cause all sorts of trouble. Third, it is still a very sexist policy, as a man getting on the same plane with a United Pass (his 10 year-old daughter had to cover up her leggings with a dress in her carry-on) was wearing shorts that were shorter than United Pass rules allowed. Now, he may not have actually been on a United Pass, in which case, why did his daughter have to cover her leggings?
Finally, you’re seriously going to shame those girls yet again for having the audacity to either not have been told the rules by whoever gave them the tickets, or to have forgotten the rules temporarily? You’re right that it ultimately wasn’t a big deal since they were able to change from clothes in their carry-ons, but you’re still an asshole.
OK, I just re-read a story on the aftermath of the first story about the girls being kicked off for leggings. The young girl and her family were *not* flying United Pass. They just heard the other girls being told they couldn’t fly in leggings and were scared they wouldn’t be allowed on. This goes to show that this is really a stupid rule from United anyway.
They have rules.
It makes me think about the standard response to a police shooting “It was found to be in policy”. Policy? Why does policy override law?
New hot take in balanced journalism: drunk driver ran over child but they didn’t eat their veggies so they probably deserved it.
Also for all the people claiming that the leggings thing was in any way ok: fuck you for supporting the sexualised body policing of children.
leggings:
every major US airline offers free flight passes to its employees. they’re called NRSA, or “non-revenue space available.” dress code standards have relaxed considerably within the past few years; some airlines required nonrevs to wear their uniforms. although some people said they saw the “leggings” girls board with a man wearing shorts, united said he was a paying customer (and thus not subject to the dress code). most airlines won’t let NRSA men board wearing jeans, let alone shorts.
I’m with PZ on that. I’m seriously questioning my decision to start playing again with a bunch of gamers (7 Days to Die) for just this conversation. They were all saying all sorts of things about this story and I was just getting more and more disgusted. I said they shouldn’t be overbooking flights in the first place, which is what caused the problem. Ugh. Anyway, I might talk to one of them who I thought was a friend to clarify her views. Maybe I should just leave it and not play with these people again.
How do you know the treatment of the main on the plane was disgraceful, when you have only been shown an out of context brief video?
I’m always up for a bit of corporation bashing, but my honesty prevents me from jumping on your bandwagon. The man who was dragged off was screaming like a lunatic and he was described by security as ‘belligerent’.
But hey, let’s just get hysterical and not bother with questions and evidence. Witch hunts are the way to go.
I don’t think anyone here has yet noted the potential racist and homophobic angles to the assault and battery incident. Or at least to the reporting of it. Is it entirely a coincidence that the victim here, a Chinese-American called Dao who was not straight, was labelled as overly belligerent and had some of the less savoury details of his past raked up in media coverage? Would a white American have been subjected to the same indignities?
@Lawrence Newman
Within what context is it okay to use violence to remove a non-violent, paying customer because they refused to volunteer to remove themselves?
“Within what context is it okay to use violence to remove a non-violent, paying customer because they refused to volunteer to remove themselves?”
When the PRIVATE company who SET THE RULES have EMPLOYEES who have to ABIDE BY SAID RULES in order to ensure the safety of the passengers.
If the flight had been overbooked by 10 and they were lying in the aisle, would you have opposed removing them if they refused to leave voluntarily and wait for the next flight and instead screamed like children?
“Is it entirely a coincidence that the victim here, a Chinese-American called Dao who was not straight, was labelled as overly belligerent and had some of the less savoury details of his past raked up in media coverage? ”
Possibly not. From my experience, homosexual men can be real drama queens and can get hysterical over the drop of a hat. By the sounds of his screams, this could be what happened.
Lawrence Newman, #45
Speaking of casual homophobia…
“Speaking of casual homophobia…”
So pattern recognition is an illness? LOL!
Ah, yeah, the jackboots claimed he was belligerent. There’s no reason the guys on the firing line would have any reason to characterize anyone who could potentially accuse them of misuse of force as having done something to deserve it. They’re clearly unbiased reporters of objective fact.
Might as well take the cops side on every case of violence and shooting, right? If all those black people weren’t so damn uppity, it’d all go along smoothly.
Lawrence Newman @44
Were the other passengers in danger? What from?
*snort* What happened to all that horrible removal of primary erogenous organs, including those of gay men, Cupcake? Given up already?
Mr. Newman had a bit of a fantod over at Affinity.
Going through the pictures on his G+ account sure is illuminating. My main takeaway is that they’re really pro-ukip and thinks gay marriage is part of a global jewish conspiracy.
Okay, Lawrence Newman,
I’ll bite.
Three big thugs come up to you on a plane, and start man-handling you – how’d you react?
Lawrence Newman, #47
Oh, do fuck off. Fuck right off. Off back to your dingy little nest of self-important bigotry. You think we haven’t come across your sort of “hur hur, gays are all simpering drama queens, everyone says so” bollocks before? You think we’re impressed by your trite attempts to stir the cold dregs of baseless 1950s stereotyping as if it amounted to a valid contribution to any debate?
Go on, off you fuck…
Wow. I’m impressed. Usually the bigots who show up here make an effort to appear reasonable and open-minded, but not you, no sir. Straight to the stereotyping.
Aaaaand…straight to the blocklist. Bye, Mr Newman.
@52
Given that he’s a kipper, I’d imagine he’d dazzle the thugs with his superior genetics and wait for the authorities to deport them.
#27
Informative, thanks.
I’m curious about the homophobic angle. How could their behaviour towards him be motivated by him not being straight, if they did not know he was not straight? I did not see any indication of his sexuality in the footage and reporting that I have viewed, so I’m not certain how they were supposed to know that about him.
Holms, #57
That was why I said “or at least the reporting of it”. The gutter press seem to have delighted in pointing out some of the more sordid details of his past life with their usual homophobic aplomb (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/11/daily-mail-outs-doctor-who-was-dragged-off-united-airlines-flight-with-blood-pouring-from-his-face/).
I just got this in and thought it might be of interest, it seems that dragging someone off the plane by force may not be such an anomaly fir united after all.
interesting
uncle frogy
Prediction:
The Trump White House and the Gang of Tang will decide that the abuse of airline passengers cries out for more deregulation of the airlines.
#61
By, amongst other things, reducing their legal liability for mistreatment of passengers.
It appears this is not entirely true – the journalists who went through his past weren’t just unethical, they were also incompetent, and the convictions were of a different Dr Duc, with the same first and last names but different middle names.
To be fair, we as a society have apparently decided that it’s acceptable to pretend that buying something doesn’t mean you now own it, and people who don’t abide by that tend to be called “Thieves” themselves
I’m not seeing a justification in there anywhere. Did you perhaps compose this in paint and forget to copy and paste a paragraph?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that “rules are rules” is a valid justification for United’s actions.
Here’s the problem: United broke its own rules. Here is United’s Contract of Carriage: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
You will note that there are two sections that deal with a person not being put on a flight: Section 25 which is about passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily and Section 21 which is about refusal of transport.
The language isn’t specific, but the context is pretty suggestive that “denied boarding” is something that happens *before* you get on the plane while “refusal of transport” is something that happens *after.* The biggest one is right there in the description: “Denied boarding.” Once you have boarded, you have not been “denied boarding.” There is a list of justifications United can use to refuse you transport.
Making room for an employee is not listed.
That’s a reason they can deny you boarding, but you aren’t on the plane yet and thus, your seat can be given away. Once you get on the plane, though, you have taken your seat and they need to have more important reasons to take it away from you. If you are drunk, they can kick you off the plane. If you aren’t wearing shoes (or “dressed properly”), if you haven’t paid, if your international travel papers aren’t in order, if you assault someone, etc.: These are reasons that they can kick you off the plane.
Making room for an employee is not listed as one of those reasons. If United needed to do that, then by their own rules they needed to have done it *before* boarding the plane That’s why they take your ticket and scan it/tear it. It is the proof that you’ve boarded. Once those people are on the plane, they have a right to their seat.
Now, people are going to say that, “You don’t argue with the crewmembers.” That’s the same argument used against black people who dare tell the cops no when the cops give an illegal order. If you aren’t allowed to stand up for your rights, then you don’t actually have them.
The problem isn’t that they prioritized the employee’s flight, the problem is that they didn’t account for both the employee and the passenger. I think if it’s a zero-sum game, United is right to prioritize getting its employees home on time. But why is it a zero-sum game? That’s the piece that needs to be fixed.
@pita, 65: Well, in the physical sense, it is a zero-sum game: There are only so many seats on the plane. If the company has offered the seats to more people than there are seats, then in order for someone to get on the plane, someone has to not.
Now, with regard to the employees, there was a reason for United to do this. That is, they weren’t putting the employee on the flight just because the employee wanted to fly to that destination. Instead, it had to do with being able to continue to have the flights function. There are duty restrictions such that employees can only work so many hours in a certain time period. For the flights leaving out of the destination city, the employees there were not available so they needed to move employees to that location in order for the next flight to be able to leave. Thus, United did have a vested interest in getting these specific employees to the destination in a timely manner.
However, they still needed to follow their own rules and then consider ways in which they could accommodate everyone. As I mentioned, they didn’t follow the rules regarding refusal to transport: They were already on the plane and thus the rules for “denied boarding” don’t apply. So what they could have done was offered more compensation. Federal law indicates the maximum that an airline is required to offer…which United didn’t do…but there’s nothing stopping them from offering more. They could have found alternative transportation on another airline or even hired a jet to get the employees there.
And finally, they could have canceled the following flight. That would be the most drastic result as far as United is concerned (since it would require them compensating everybody on it as well as cause problems down the line since planes have cascading iteneraries), but that is the consequence for not handling this properly. I find it difficult to believe that United didn’t know that they needed to move these people until after boarding had commenced.