Last Person #5
- Thread starter jks9199
- Start date
- Status
ks - learning to fly
Senior Master
your post reminded me of a professor I had for macro economics
and finance, among other classes - he used to say he had the
tests printed on red paper in order to hide the blood!
CB Jones
Senior Master
Had a professor who was known for tough exams and sitting at his desk smiling at you the whole exam.
We called him the Smiling Executioner.
On a side note we also had a professor who was a Vietnam Vet that we nicknamed Dr. Napalm. Lol.
Yeah, such is life at airports. But I have it on pretty good authority he was selling cruel shoes to passengers.
Yeah, that was a giant cluster. You overbooked your flight. OK, so start offering people a reason to get off. Upgrades to 1st class. Free tickets. Cash.
The letter from their CEO says they offer up to $1000. Well, I'd say if nobody takes you up on the offer, it would be better to raise the offer than to start physically drag people off the plane.
Because it's a sure bet this is going to cost them a lot more than $1000.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
It appears now that they needed to make space for an employee.
The window of opportunity on these flights is before it boards. It's not uncommon for a flight to offer incentives for people to get them to voluntarily delay their travel. Alaskan Airlines often offers a free domestic round trip voucher. That gets people moving, usually.
But on the plane, after everyone is seated, that's just terrible judgment. And those officers had to know they would be all over YouTube.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
For work, I typically fly Southwest. For anything else, I fly Alaskan Airlines, if at all possible, and then Delta.
CB Jones
Senior Master
While the airline handled it poorly...so did the passenger.
You are required to give up that seat when the Airline deems it necessary. Refusal to do so is a crime, and if you continue to refuse then you must be forcibly removed.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
we are living in interesting times....
if you don't accept the denial of services you paid for, you are committing a crime...
well, be that as it may....and considering they caved, it's bad business to beat up paying customers.
and it seems he had a good reason to be on this flight.
But hey, revolutions start with people refusing to give up their seats....we can't have that!
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Yeah, maybe so, on a completely different scale. Given that, the airline is going to end up paying him a truckload of money to settle the inevitable (and justified) lawsuit that is to come.
I completely understand why a guy would want to stay in a seat he paid for to fly to a place with his wife, who is also on the plane, and not relinquish his seat. From the perspective of the airline, he broke the law by staying in a seat for which he paid, received a boarding pass and was allowed (lawfully) to sit in. It's very clear who is a victim here, and who is not.
CB Jones
Senior Master
The ticket is purchased under the agreement that the Airline can remove the passenger and change his flight if they deem it necessary.
That rule existed prior to him purchasing the ticket.
The proper way of handling it is to complain or sue afterwards...not physically refuse to follow rules set long before this incident happened.
That rule existed prior to him purchasing the ticket.
The proper way of handling it is to complain or sue afterwards...not physically refuse to follow rules set long before this incident happened.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
LOL. Had he not physically refused to follow the rules, he'd have little grounds for the lawsuit that is to come.
Just to clarify, I get where you're coming from. Understand that there are different perspectives at play here. You're coming at this from a cop's perspective, which is a default, rule's follower perspective. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Another equally valid perspective is that rules are great provided they are enforced with some degree of common sense and discretion. In this case, reasonable people can understand that a rule providing for employees to get from Point A to Point B makes sense. Shoot, most people understand why airlines overbook. But there is a difference between a lawful application of the law and a just application of the law. The airline may be within the rule of law, but I expect this lawsuit won't even see the inside of a courtroom, as they will almost surely settle, because they know they did something that was unjust. They crossed a line, and I'm sure they are like, "Oh crap. We crossed a line."
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Okay, I'll say this and let it drop. Poorly is a judgment. It's subjective. I don't agree that both sides handled this poorly.
While I can agree that the guy technically broke a rule (fact) and also, in the way he reacted, he may have broken a law (fact). I do not agree that he handled the situation poorly (opinion). I actually think he handled the situation about the same way many reasonable people would in a similar situation.
"Poorly" really depends on the lens through which you are evaluating the situation. From a monetary perspective, he handled the situation well. He will likely get a lot of money out of this, and if he followed your advice from earlier (obey now, sue later) he wouldn't have a case.
From a moral perspective, it depends, but my opinion is that he handled it well here, too. On one hand, he broke a rule. On the other, relevant here are the principles of civil disobedience in the face of injustice, whether through the letter of a law or in its application. Watching the videos of those guys throwing the passenger to the ground and literally dragging his limp body off the plane, everyone (almost everyone) has a strong, visceral reaction. One look at that dazed old man with blood on his face, babbling incoherently in shock and it's clear that the authorities overstepped.
Legally, United would be foolish to press charges, and I don't think they will. They will settle out of court.
- Status
