News United Airlines is a terrible business

  • Thread starter Thread starter FallenApple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Business
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the controversial incident involving United Airlines and the forced removal of Dr. Dao from a flight, highlighting significant issues in airline policies and customer treatment. Participants express frustration with United's handling of overbooking and the use of force by security personnel, arguing that the airline's approach reflects a failure to manage customer relations effectively. There is a consensus that the situation escalated unnecessarily, with suggestions that better communication and increased compensation offers could have resolved the issue without violence. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of airline practices, including overbooking and the ethical considerations of passenger treatment. Many contributors emphasize that the incident has led to a public relations disaster for United, with potential legal ramifications and a call for improved policies to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Overall, the thread critiques the airline industry's need for better competition and customer service standards.
  • #101
Dr. Courtney said:
Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.
I agree in principle, but there is such a thing as disrespect for authority and I was referring more to the big picture than this specific incident...for example, the Spirit Airlines incident and the Delta Airline's incident:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...threatened-jail-refusing-give-toddler-n755141

It appears the facebook comments I saw about putting up a fight were realized.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
XZ923 said:
Of course, I'm not sure a straw man argument conflating retail merchandise under local jurisdiction with a human being on a transport vessel under federal jurisdiction would stand up in court (probably not).

There's an additional twist. The aircraft was owned and operated by Republic. It was only marketed by United. Given that all the Republic staff declined to act, can United reasonably claim Dao was trespassing?
 
  • #103
Vanadium 50 said:
The better analogy is that you have a completely full hotel, and 4 corporate bigwigs show up wanting rooms, so you send 4 guests onto the streets. That said, hotels do overbook - it's called being "walked". You get to the hotel, and are told "Sorry no rooms, and yes, we know you had a reservation, and yes, we even charged your credit card, but we're still full. Sorry." I can tell you, this is not much fun.
Right, and the airline in this case went a step further, busting into a hotel room after the guest has settled in and telling them to get lost. Hotels seem to know better. Airlines, not so much.
 
  • Like
Likes StatGuy2000
  • #104
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, this was not a problem with overbooking. The better analogy is that you have a completely full hotel, and 4 corporate bigwigs show up wanting rooms, so you send 4 guests onto the streets. That said, hotels do overbook - it's called being "walked". You get to the hotel, and are told "Sorry no rooms, and yes, we know you had a reservation, and yes, we even charged your credit card, but we're still full. Sorry." I can tell you, this is not much fun.

This is a good analogy. But as pointed out above, the better analogy would be kicking out guests forcibly from their rooms after they had already been checked in, given key cards, and settled into their rooms.

Vanadium 50 said:
Are there no limits to what you must do when instructed by "security"? If they ask you for your wallet are you required to give it to them? What about if they ask you to slug another passenger? Dance naked in the aisles singing show tunes? Dao wasn't committing a crime. He wasn't posing a threat to the flight. He wasn't even disregarding flight crew instructions - although he was disregarding gate agent instructions.

This is the point I was trying to make above. There is a duty to obey authority only within the legitimate bounds of that authority, and it seems clear in this case that the "security" was acting beyond the bounds of their authority in several ways. Not many physics teachers would think the authority of a physics teacher extends to telling students how to do their spanish homework or that the authority of the football coach extends to telling students they don't have to do their physics homework. How does putting a uniform on someone and giving limited police powers mean that suddenly no one can ever resist on the spot, but that the only legitimate resistance is to take them to court later (after complying on the spot)?
Vanadium 50 said:
I think I don't even agree with the description "security". They are not allowed to identify themselves as police. They did anyway. They are not allowed to board an aircraft. They did anyway. They are not allowed to be used as "muscle" to enforce the airline's side in a customer service dispute. And boy, did they ever do that.

Oh, and yes, there are other bad things going on in the world. Doesn't make this one any better.

Yep. The "authorities" were acting well beyond the scope of their legitimate powers. As far as I can tell, the passenger had no more duty of compliance than if a NYC policeman shows up in New Orleans and starts trying to enforce NYC laws.
 
Back
Top