Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away United shill!

I wonder if it's a rep for another airline because they're being quite effective at getting everyone here even more pissed off at United. Maybe some good ol' guerilla anti-marketing from Delta or something.

Look at you thinking there's just one person defending United.

Stockholm syndrome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

He wasn't flying the same day he had appointments. He had a Sunday afternoon flight, and had appointments Monday morning. Pretty reasonable approach. If United had upped the incentive, some other party would have taken it and none of this would have happenned. For the sake of a few hundred dollars, United has a PR nightmare on their hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why airlines are allowed to overbook. I've always expected that if I pay for a seat, that I will get to be on that flight. Will never book a flight with United in the future.

All airlines overbook, so it's pretty difficult to avoid that situation if you plan to fly at all.

NP here. All airlines overbook because it is in their best business interests to do so. It's profitable for them. But it seems to me - and many others here, I'm sure - that the cost of doing business that way is that you often have to bump people and compensate them appropriately. There is always a price where people will agree to give up their seats. The airlines should keep incresing the compensation offered until enough people have volunteered. If regulations limit the airlines' ability to increase the comepnsation to effective levels, perhaps those regulations should be reconsidered. With all flights on all airlines routinely overbooked, voluntary bumping is now the norm. Someone should ensure that this process works as well for the passengers as for the airlines. I say this as someone who has given up my seat on a number of occasions in the past when the price has been right.

[Anonymous]

This is an aptly timed article-- The moral of which is to Fly Delta.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#3be275254de1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

Yes! Down with the little people who fly home from vacations on Sundays in order to go to work on Monday. Oh wait, that was 99% of the plane's passengers...

If I have an event I _must_ be at, I always fly a day earlier than normal just to account for flight delays. For example, I'll do this if I'm speaking at a conference or I'm in someone's wedding.

I don't need to do this often since it's usually not that bad if I arrive a day late..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

I think part of what's disgusting about your defense of the airline and police actions here is that the police were acting at the behest of the airline, to protect their financial interests. This wasn't an unruly passenger who was a danger to others, this was a paying customer randomly selected for removal, because the airline refused to increase the incentive for being bumped. He was taken off to save the airline money, and the police were used to enforce United's corporate interests. That is disgusting, we should all be appalled, and their position is not defensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

Yes! Down with the little people who fly home from vacations on Sundays in order to go to work on Monday. Oh wait, that was 99% of the plane's passengers...

If I have an event I _must_ be at, I always fly a day earlier than normal just to account for flight delays. For example, I'll do this if I'm speaking at a conference or I'm in someone's wedding.

I don't need to do this often since it's usually not that bad if I arrive a day late..

Go you! However, you can't know and plan the life of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

I think part of what's disgusting about your defense of the airline and police actions here is that the police were acting at the behest of the airline, to protect their financial interests. This wasn't an unruly passenger who was a danger to others, this was a paying customer randomly selected for removal, because the airline refused to increase the incentive for being bumped. He was taken off to save the airline money, and the police were used to enforce United's corporate interests. That is disgusting, we should all be appalled, and their position is not defensible.

+ 10000
Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

I think part of what's disgusting about your defense of the airline and police actions here is that the police were acting at the behest of the airline, to protect their financial interests. This wasn't an unruly passenger who was a danger to others, this was a paying customer randomly selected for removal, because the airline refused to increase the incentive for being bumped. He was taken off to save the airline money, and the police were used to enforce United's corporate interests. That is disgusting, we should all be appalled, and their position is not defensible.

So the passenger who refused to comply with the crew's orders is going to comply with all their other orders when he's up in the air? Is he going to put his seatbelt on when requested; not smoke, etc? How do we know that, given he's already shown he's not willing to comply with one order?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

I think part of what's disgusting about your defense of the airline and police actions here is that the police were acting at the behest of the airline, to protect their financial interests. This wasn't an unruly passenger who was a danger to others, this was a paying customer randomly selected for removal, because the airline refused to increase the incentive for being bumped. He was taken off to save the airline money, and the police were used to enforce United's corporate interests. That is disgusting, we should all be appalled, and their position is not defensible.

So the passenger who refused to comply with the crew's orders is going to comply with all their other orders when he's up in the air? Is he going to put his seatbelt on when requested; not smoke, etc? How do we know that, given he's already shown he's not willing to comply with one order?

JFC. You are completely up United's a$$, aren't you? Of course this man wouldn't have been unruly in normal circumstances. He was just resisting a patently ridiculous move by United.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

I think part of what's disgusting about your defense of the airline and police actions here is that the police were acting at the behest of the airline, to protect their financial interests. This wasn't an unruly passenger who was a danger to others, this was a paying customer randomly selected for removal, because the airline refused to increase the incentive for being bumped. He was taken off to save the airline money, and the police were used to enforce United's corporate interests. That is disgusting, we should all be appalled, and their position is not defensible.

So the passenger who refused to comply with the crew's orders is going to comply with all their other orders when he's up in the air? Is he going to put his seatbelt on when requested; not smoke, etc? How do we know that, given he's already shown he's not willing to comply with one order?

You're an argumentative asshole with no common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

You appear to have utterly lost your moral compass. I pity you.

[Anonymous]

They would rather use their hired goons to beat the crap out of this guy rather than increase the compensation they had to pay above $800. It is that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

Yes! Down with the little people who fly home from vacations on Sundays in order to go to work on Monday. Oh wait, that was 99% of the plane's passengers...

If I have an event I _must_ be at, I always fly a day earlier than normal just to account for flight delays. For example, I'll do this if I'm speaking at a conference or I'm in someone's wedding.

I don't need to do this often since it's usually not that bad if I arrive a day late..

So if you are speaking at a conference on a Thursday morning, you leave on a Tuesday, just in case there are flight delays? If so, my god, you have got to unclench. That's a ridiculous thing to do, and it's EXTRA ridiculous to expect other people to pay for an extra night of hotel just in case there are delays in travel. Leaving the afternoon before should have been plenty of time.

That said, it's like a 6 hour drive, max, to Louisville from Chicago. Me, I would've taken the $800 and rented a car, if I needed to get home so bad, but I completely understand why this guy did not want to get up. This sort of thing should have been sorted out well before the plane was fully boarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

Yes! Down with the little people who fly home from vacations on Sundays in order to go to work on Monday. Oh wait, that was 99% of the plane's passengers...

If I have an event I _must_ be at, I always fly a day earlier than normal just to account for flight delays. For example, I'll do this if I'm speaking at a conference or I'm in someone's wedding.

I don't need to do this often since it's usually not that bad if I arrive a day late..

So if you are speaking at a conference on a Thursday morning, you leave on a Tuesday, just in case there are flight delays? If so, my god, you have got to unclench. That's a ridiculous thing to do, and it's EXTRA ridiculous to expect other people to pay for an extra night of hotel just in case there are delays in travel. Leaving the afternoon before should have been plenty of time.

Yes, and it's saved me more than once. Once I was coming from Europe and flight arrived a bit late into Chicago, and passport control lines took over an hour (this was before Global Entry) so I missed the last flight of the day to Las Vegas. Another time while flying in the US, there was a major snowstorm and all flights were cancelled that day.

Heck, look at people flying Delta through Atlanta last week: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/business/storms-delta-cancellations/
3,000 flights cancelled due to thunderstorms

I'll follow that same plan later this month, though not as extreme. I have to speak at a conference in Sacramento on Thursday afternoon, so I'm flying there on Wednesday morning. I've checked that there are other flight options later that day in case my flight gets cancelled or delayed.

Now if I were just attending the conference, I wouldn't care, but when I speak I don't want to leave a room of people sitting there. I used to organize conferences and I know how tough it can be when the speaker doesn't show up.