News United Airlines is a terrible business

[vela]

IMO, the best solution is not to overbook at all and not reimburse customers who fail to cancel in time.

But the problem wasn't overbooking. It was United deciding to force people off a flight after they had already boarded. The situation could have easily been avoided if United hadn't decided at the last minute that its employees had to be on that particular flight, or if the airline had simply increased compensation until it found four passengers willing to give up their seats.

The irony is that sending in the brute squad will end up costing United far more than the $200 that they would have lost with the compensation.

Yup, someone at United made a really bad and ultimately costly decision. It was a situation that could have easily been avoided, so your proposal strikes me as an overreaction by imposing an industry-wide requirement because someone at United made a really stupid choice.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But the problem wasn't overbooking.

I was the first in this thread to point out that the UA case wasn't overbooking (post 3) but the result is the same. Overbooking is selling something you don't have. Should a merchant take money for an item he knows he cannot provide unless others don't claim what they purchased? BTW you didn't quote my post fully (post 48). I addressed the issue of employee seating.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not what happens. Here's how it's supposed to work...

...they have N seats, M passengers with seat assignments, K passengers confirmed but without seat assignments, and L passengers on the standby list. For the flight in question N = 70, M was probably about 60, which would make K around 10, and I don't know what L was. In this case things are straightforward - print up K boarding passes and go.

What's a "supposed to"?

I know there are differences between how a perfect world works and how the real world works -- this thread would not exist if "supopsed to" always matched reality. I also recognize that it is a very complex situation/dance (that overall you understand better than I). My point may not have been explicit enough, but I was trying to point out one critical aspect, which it appears you overlooked as well: you're missing group "S" -- the no-Shows. My point was that the airline doesn't know if a potential "S" is actually an "S" or an "M" until they close the door to the plane.

Or to put it another way: this problem (typically) doesn't happen because they overbook the flight, it happens because they overbook the flight and then not enough people no-Show. In the era of online check-in, when people don't need to get their seet asignments at the ticket counter, the airline doesn't know if a late-running passenger is in the airport or still at home in bed.

My suspicion is that the easy/typical solution is that they bump the guy who is running late involuntarily and give away his ticket even before he's actually missed the plane, but in the past I have seen two people get on a plane with the same seat asignment.

Because this was not an oversold situation, and the pax was actually boarded, this does not fall under Rule 25 (Denial of Boarding), but rather Rule 21 (Refusal of Transport) in the CoC. However, none of the conditions in 21 seem to apply here. It appears that United breached its own CoC.

My interpetation of several clauses of rule 21 is that they are broad and apply here, but at this point the courts will have to sort it out. Either way, it is strange to me that this situation or one like it wouldn't be covered more explicitly by the rules.

 

[vela]

I was the first in this thread to point out that the UA case wasn't overbooking (post 3) but the result is the same. Overbooking is selling something you don't have. Should a merchant take money for an item he knows he cannot provide unless others don't claim what they purchased? BTW you didn't quote my post fully (post 48). I addressed the issue of employee seating.

I don't see why the supposed problem with overbooking needs to be fixed when it wasn't and isn't the problem in the first place. The end result might have been the same, but the difference was the way United violated the reasonable expectation of most travelers. Travelers might not be happy to lose their seat, but they can understand an airline giving away their seat if it thought they were no-shows. They won't have much sympathy for an airline that solves its problems by arbitrarily deciding to kick them off a plane they're already on.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't see why the supposed problem with overbooking needs to be fixed when it wasn't and isn't the problem in the first place. The end result might have been the same, but the difference was the way United violated the reasonable expectation of most travelers. Travelers might not be happy to lose their seat, but they can understand an airline giving away their seat if it thought they were no-shows. They won't have much sympathy for an airline that solves its problems by arbitrarily deciding to kick them off a plane they're already on.

No shows should not be a problem the way I described it. To reserve a seat you pay in advance. If you fail to cancel in time you don't get your money back. Waivers may be granted for certain conditions beyond the customer's control, but they must be reported ASAP. The airlines set what "in time" means , the nature of the waiver and who gets waivers (loyal frequent flyers, etc). There is no need for overbooking. What happened to Dr Dao could have happened whether it was for overbooking, unbooked employee transport or some other reason. I already said if bumping is necessary, it must always be voluntary. Bumping is a major source of irritation or worse for many passengers. Most of it is due to overbooking and can be eliminated IMO. Why did nobody else volunteer for $800 and save Dr Dao from the thugs?

 

[gmax137]

The airlines have reduced ticket prices to the point where they must fill every seat on every flight (or so they would have us believe). That is the real "problem" -- there is no surge capacity on any flight. Back in the day the flights were typically 2/3 full so there was always plenty of seats for the "expected no shows" that actually showed, or the passengers who missed their connection due to delay on their previous leg. All of that wiggle room is gone now (pun intended).

When the majority of passengers were business flyers the higher ticket process were ok (easier to spend the customer's money than your own). In those days few could afford to take their kids to Disney or to visit grandma. But flying was a lot more pleasant.

On Edit -- I wonder about the subject flight, what was the reaction of the passengers to the United employee who took the seat "vacated" by Dr Dao?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wonder about the subject flight, what was the reaction of the passengers to the United employee who took the seat "vacated" by Dr Dao?

I'm sure they were polite. Very, very polite.

(And technically, it wasn't a United employee. It was Trans-States)

 

[XZ923]

Not to digress, but my opinion on this matter is very simple: confiscate and destroy every camera in every smartphone. I am beyond tired of seeing the daily cause du jour that everyone always gets so spun up about. Dr. Dao should have complied with security, the airline should not have allowed the situation to occur at all. Plenty of blame to go around. I honestly don't care enough one way or the other to form an opinion or pick a side.

Pay the guy's medical bills and an extra few K for his trouble and let that be the end of it.

Here's a truly stunning thought for today's youth: it's possible for a minor event in your life to occur without the need to film it and broadcast it to the world. Turn the damn thing off once in a while!

 

[BillTre]

Personally, I don't like the idea of shutting down a major route of communicating unjust events because they are "tiring" to particular individuals.

Seems to me a more appropriate recommendation would be that those easily "tired" individuals just back off of the web browsers and TV news and luxuriate in their ignorance.

 

[XZ923]

Personally, I don't like the idea of shutting down a major route of communicating unjust events because they are "tiring" to particular individuals.

Seems to me a more appropriate recommendation would be that those easily "tired" individuals just back off of the web browsers and TV news and luxuriate in their ignorance.

Obviously I was being facetious when I said "confiscate and destroy every camera". My overall point stands. If you're so obsessed with "unjust events" maybe you should pay attention to ones that actually have significant impact. How many people were murdered in America the same day this event happened? The same week? How many people died of drug overdoses? How many homeless veterans who fought for this country are sleeping on a park bench because of the incompetent federal government?

In the long run this incident should be meaningless. Dr. Dao will be perfectly fine, the airline will pay restitution, and no one's life will be significantly altered. The only reason you care about it so much is because someone shot a video and the media told you that you need to be upset about it.

Perhaps I should rephrase my previous premise. I'm tired of people getting spun up over minor things just because someone pointed a camera at it and CNN told you how awful it was when there are REAL injustices of much greater magnitude around us all the time. If you want to do something about injustice, unplug from the media long enough to donate time or money to charity.

And for the record, you don't need to film yourself doing it.

 

[russ_watters]

My overall point stands. If you're so obsessed with "unjust events" maybe you should pay attention to ones that actually have significant impact. How many people were murdered in America the same day this event happened? The same week? How many people died of drug overdoses? How many homeless veterans who fought for this country are sleeping on a park bench because of the incompetent federal government?

In the long run this incident should be meaningless.

I think @BillTre didn't quite get your overall point, instead focusing on the "tired of" part...

It isn't the recording of the events with smartphone cameras that is the problem, it is the viral outrage generated by social media. What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events. So I agree that in terms of its place on the list of terrible events occurring that day (almost none of which any of us heard about), it generated way more reaction/outrage than deserved.

 

[BillTre]

I guess one person's unjust event is just another's "minor thing".
Making choices like this for other people, seems inappropriate to me. For one thing its a freedom of speech issue.

Those complaining could do their own self-behavior modification and look elsewhere if they are so "tired".

 

[XZ923]

I think @BillTre didn't quite get your overall point, instead focusing on the "tired of" part...

It isn't the recording of the events with smartphone cameras that is the problem, it is the viral outrage generated by social media. What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events. So I agree that in terms of its place on the list of terrible events occurring that day (almost none of which any of us heard about), it generated way more reaction/outrage than deserved.

Thank you for summing it up much better than I did. In particular the part I bolded is the point I was trying to make; you worded it much better.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess one person's unjust event is just another's "minor thing".
Making choices like this for other people, seems inappropriate to me.

Fair enough - everyone is entitled to their opinions - but if pressed to make a logical argument for their opinion, I doubt anyone who is outraged could present a reasonable case that the amount of outrage generated is proportional to the severity of the act/injustice. Or to put a sharper point on it; is a murder a "minor thing"? More or less "minor" than this incident? How many murder victims from that day can you name? I'm pretty sure I know the answers to all those questions and I suggest any thinking person should agree the public response to this event is *wildly* disproportionate to how major/minor the injustice was.

 

[BillTre]

What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events.

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?
I can understand your issues with this specific case and its well discussed problems, however I find it interesting to know about it. On the other hand, I am no longer paying it much attention.
Just don't watch if you don't like it.
It just sounds like censorship or repression to me. These would be good rules for Turkey and Russia.

There are plenty of things I choose to not pay attention to irrespective of the amount which they are floating around the media, like Harambe for example or lots of different sports.

 

[russ_watters]

We crossed a bit, so at risk of repetition...

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?

By applying *some* (any) sort of logic to the level of severity of the "injustice". Yes, it is a matter of opinion and yes it is reasonable for reasonable people to disagree about how to rank events, but this event was *so spectacularly/absurdly over-outraged*, there shouldn't be much of an argument about that when pressed to make an argument that isn't just pure emotion. IE; almost nobody will say this event was "good", but at the same time, almost nobody will suggest this event was as bad as a murder (of which there were probably about 40 that day in the USA).

It just sounds like censorship or repression to me.

I'm not suggesting a rule, nor is @XZ923. It's just the feeling that over-outrage is tiring. What I would suggest in response - that I know I will never get - is that I wish people would be more rational. But the best I can hope for is as social media matures and loses its lustre, The Outragers will grow tired as well, and people will stop paying attention.

 

[XZ923]

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?
I can understand your issues with this specific case and its well discussed problems, however I find it interesting to know about it. On the other hand, I am no longer paying it much attention.
Just don't watch if you don't like it.
It just sounds like censorship or repression to me. These would be good rules for Turkey and Russia.

There are plenty of things I choose to not pay attention to irrespective of the amount which they are floating around the media, like Harambe for example or lots of different sports.

On the contrary, I am very strongly against censorship. I am in no way suggesting people should be prevented from engaging in this sort of communication if they want to. What I am suggesting is basically what Russ Watters said above: these "viral videos" create outrage disproportionate to the issue at hand.

You asked how magnitude of events is determined? Common sense is a good place to start. What happened to Dr. Dao was an injustice, no question about it. But if we make a list of the injustices that occurred just on that day alone in the country, I highly doubt it even cracks the top 10 when compared to things like homicide.

EDIT:

Another way to look at it: what happened to Dr. Dao was at the very most a simple assault. Many other simple assaults occur everywhere all the time and you don't care about them. You only care about this one because someone put a camera on it and suggested you should be angry about it. And please don't tell me anything about how he was humiliated; it was his own decision to not comply with and then physically resist the authorities.

 

[BillTre]

and people will stop paying attention.

I think we agree on this.

There is a vast world of media information that could be considered overly outraging by different sets of people.
There is no way to make it all good for everyone.
In this case I would repeat: control thy own behavior, not others.

 

[russ_watters]

In this case I would repeat: control thy own behavior, not others.

The problem I have with that is that this isn't just harmless entertainment we're talking about. People aren't just using this to blow-off steam on facebook instead of yelling at their bosses (or whatever stressed them that day). Other peoples' disproportionate judgments about the seriousness of certain events affects me/many/some/all of us in negative ways because bad disproportionate judgments can lead to bad actions.

 

[Evo]

I have been in the situation several times where I have been on a plane where someone else was in my seat, one time I was with two small children and my connecting flight was late and I came unglued, but they had seats open in first class, so they put the three of us there. Another time, the airline was at fault again, we sat in Chicago with engine trouble, but was promised that they were holding our connecting flight seats in Houston, we got on the plane in Houston, and they had already seated other passengers, they lied, long story. In Tokyo, they overbooked and offered people money to get off the plane for 4 people, we had been up since 5am from Bangkok and declined, we were on the plane 26 hours, a horror story.

I think if Dr Dao was having an obvious mental breakdown, they should have handled it differently. They should have increased the offer to other passengers due to his emotional instability. Maybe even considered removing a flight attendant if that was possible. Were all 4 of the airline people critical?

 

[BillTre]

The problem I have with that is that this isn't just harmless entertainment we're talking about. People aren't just using this to blow-off steam on facebook instead of yelling at their bosses (or whatever stressed them that day). Other peoples' disproportionate judgments about the seriousness of certain events affects me/many/some/all of us in negative ways because bad disproportionate judgments can lead to bad actions.

As far as I can tell, all the bad actions happened in the time of the original event and everything else was just a bunch of noise taking up media space which one could choose to avoid.

And again, what you decide is disproportionate could well be not so disproportionate to someone else.

 

[rootone]

Moaning is part of human nature.
That being so, I am glad there are aircraft instead of no aircraft.

 

[Vanadium 50]

announced a new policy regarding crew movements

Yes, and if that policy were followed, this incident wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, if the existing policy were followed, this wouldn't have happened either. Reports vary, but one of two things happened. Either the 4 deadheaders were added to the flight after boarding completed (and well after the flight went under gate control), in which case they were too late, or they were added an hour before and only showed up a few minutes before, in which case the VDB drama should have happened in the gate area without injury.

The problem is one of values, not policy. The company's values are such that it's OK to break a rule for employees (or contractors, in this case) but not for customers. It was more important to pocket $200 than not to beat the snot out of a customer. Sorry...set up a situation where the probability of a customer having the snot beat out of him by others is high.

My understanding is that is what hotels do -- set various conditions on which customers can be reimbursed if they cancel a reservation.

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.

Dr. Dao should have complied with security

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.

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.

 

[XZ923]

Are there no limits to what you must do when instructed by "security"?

Yes, as determined by law.

If they ask you for your wallet are you required to give it to them?

Assuming they have the proper credentials, yes. I will ask for their name and badge number though.

What about if they ask you to slug another passenger?

Assuming you're talking about an unprovoked attack and not assisting in apprehending someone behaving in a dangerous manner, no, because that would be assault and battery and no law enforcement officer has the power to compel me to break the law.

Dance naked in the aisles singing show tunes?

No, because that would be indecent exposure and no law enforcement officer has the power to compel me to break the law. Plus my singing voice might shatter the windows which would be sabotage of an aircraft which is federal time.

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.

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.

Things I never claimed:

1. Dao was committing a crime or posing a threat (he wasn't)
2. United was correct in what they did (they weren't)
3. This wasn't a bad situation (it was)

What I'm suggesting is that before succumbing to the knee-jerk emotional reactions do a logical analysis of what actually happened and temper your response to be proportionate to said event. Save the true outrage for true outrages.

 

[russ_watters]

I have been in the situation several times where I have been on a plane where someone else was in my seat...

I recall such incidents in the past too (never *to* me, just *near* me). It may be (as V50 seems to suggest) that modern technology has enabled the overbooking to be handled prior to boarding in most cases (by holding back on issuing seat assignments), but I also remember it being a fairly "normal" thing for two people plus the flight crew to be on a plane arguing over a seat. I remember one where a guy tried to cajole his way into an equal negotiating position with "let's just both got to the gate and get it figured out" to which the guy already in the seat said "heck(sp) no, I'm not getting up out of this seat!"

No doubt, 9/11 has contributed to the increasing angst over this type of issue, but I feel there is a growing culture of entitlement and disrespect for authority that is also contributing.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I can tell, all the bad actions happened in the time of the original event and everything else was just a bunch of noise taking up media space which one could choose to avoid.

I saw people on social media suggsting:
1. The other passengers should have joined the fight against security.
2. If in the same situation as the doctor, they would act with force instead of passive resistance.

Do you really believe that this outrage will have *zero* impact on *anyone's* future actions? In other contexts, backlash over social injustice causes riots, looting, arson and murder.

And that's not even including the first order impact of harm to United's stockholders and employees.

And again, what you decide is disproportionate could well be not so disproportionate to someone else.

You asked for crtiteria or methodology for ranking/judging, it was provided, but now are avoiding applying it and just repeating that people might disagree that the reaction is disproportionate. I'll put a shaprer point on it agin: for this issue, no they don't (if they put any conscious thought into it); and if you really/actually believe the outrage was resasonable, please tell me why.

Heck, I'd even like to know if you believe the outrage is properly focused and why, given that the assault was perpetrated by people who were not United employees!

 

[russ_watters]

Are there no limits to what you must do when instructed by "security"? If they ask you...

Could we set aside the silly hypotheticals and discuss the event for what it was, please? This is part of how over hyping happens.

So, explicitly: do you think Dao should have complied or not?

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

In my entire history of booking and staying in various hotels throughout my life, I have never been "walked" like this, nor have I ever encountered overbooking rooms. That being said, if I booked a reservation (typically online), I would normally call the hotel multiple times to confirm the reservation, right up to the day before, to make sure the room is still available, and I have never had an issue. So I'm operating out of the assumption that overbooking of rooms is comparatively uncommon, compared to what is happening with airlines.

That being said, I have always held the view that if a customer pays for an airline ticket, they are paying to be guaranteed that a seat is available. If the airline can't guarantee this, then it is the airline's responsibility (which should be backed up in court, if need be) to ensure that paying customers be put on the next, earliest possible flight at no extra expense (even relying on spare planes from another airline, as a last resort).

 

[Evo]

In my entire history of booking and staying in various hotels throughout my life, I have never been "walked" like this, nor have I ever encountered overbooking rooms. That being said, if I booked a reservation (typically online), I would normally call the hotel multiple times to confirm the reservation, right up to the day before, to make sure the room is still available, and I have never had an issue. So I'm operating out of the assumption that overbooking of rooms is comparatively uncommon, compared to what is happening with airlines.

I guess you've never been to Las Vegas. I have had to switch hotels during stays due to overbooking, so has my daughter. Once, the air conditioning in our room wasn't working right and they had no other rooms in that category, it was around midnight, so they moved us into a luxury suite for the entire stay, yet only billed us for the cheaper room. Wow, I could handle that kind of room change all of the time, we got an $800 a night room for $70 a night. It wasn't overbooking in this case, they were just full in the cheaper rooms.

 

[BillTre]

Could we set aside the silly hypotheticals and discuss the event for what it was, please?

Such as these?:
These are some, as of yet, un-manifested hypotheticals:

I saw people on social media suggsting:
1. The other passengers should have joined the fight against security.
2. If in the same situation as the doctor, they would act with force instead of passive resistance.

Do you really believe that this outrage will have *zero* impact on *anyone's* future actions? In other contexts, backlash over social injustice causes riots, looting, arson and murder.

Was there any other force used?

The Issue of Who and How to Decide?:

You asked for crtiteria or methodology for ranking/judging, it was provided, but now are avoiding applying it and just repeating that people might disagree that the reaction is disproportionate.

As far as I can tell, these are the proposed criteria for determining if something is worthy (in the view of some) of getting media access.

Fair enough - everyone is entitled to their opinions - but if pressed to make a logical argument for their opinion, I doubt anyone who is outraged could present a reasonable case that the amount of outrage generated is proportional to the severity of the act/injustice.

You asked how magnitude of events is determined? Common sense is a good place to start.

If you want to base such a decision on the "Common Sense" or opinions of what is a rational decision of one or a small handful of people (such as @russ_watters), then there will inevitably be others who disagree. Your opinions are not universally accepted just because they are labeled by you as common sense or that they are rational. This, of course, has in the past been a slippery slope which has in the past lead to bad results.

Also, how are you to tell that an ongoing event, which you might want to record, will produce an amount of outrage (in the social media) out of proportion with the amount of outrage someone thinks is appropriate, before the outrage happens? You can not tell what is going to take off and what will fizzle out.
These are poorly poised issues and any implementation of them smacks of repression of those who are not in agreement with you.

I doubt anyone who is outraged could present a reasonable case that the amount of outrage generated is proportional to the severity of the act/injustice.

You seem pretty outraged about this subject.

 

[XZ923]

If you want to base such a decision on the "Common Sense" or opinions of what is a rational decision of one or a small handful of people (such as @russ_watters), then there will inevitably be others who disagree. Your opinions are not universally accepted just because they are labeled by you as common sense or that they are rational. This, of course, has in the past been a slippery slope which has in the past lead to bad results.

Also, how are you to tell that an ongoing event, which you might want to record, will produce an amount of outrage (in the social media) out of proportion with the amount of outrage someone thinks is appropriate, before the outrage happens? You can not tell what is going to take off and what will fizzle out.
These are poorly poised issues and any implementation of them smacks of repression of those who are not in agreement with you.

You pulled my quote out of context. My common sense argument stated that simple assault was not as severe an offense against a person as homicide. If you're not willing to allow that to fall under the heading of common sense there's no point continuing the discussion. The entire reason I put it under a "common sense" label was because I was making a point that no rational person would be disputing; again, that minor injuries are less severe an offense against someone than ending their life. This was part of the larger point that the outrage over the video was disproportionate to the actual offense.

As for your second paragraph, you seem really hung up on the idea that I'm suggesting people should somehow be banned from posting videos. I'm not saying that; I'm saying that people should stop and think about overall context before flying off on knee-jerk emotional reactions. I'm also not interested in repressing or censoring anybody who does so; I'm just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of being so angry about what really is a minor issue simply because someone pointed a camera at it when far worse things happen all the time.

 

[BillTre]

My common sense argument stated that simple assault was not as severe an offense against a person as homicide.

Your "common sense" assumption that you can decide for others if some event is more significant that another wrt to amount of media it gets based amount of physical damage that occurs to people is simplistic.

There are many things in our complex society that could trump a death, such as:

• a major hitherto undetected chemical spill
• depletion of ground water in certain areas of the country
  
• a major political candidate in collusion with a adversarial foreign power
• political covering up of climate change by destroying climate data

Should any mention of deaths be suppressed because they don't reach the levels on importance that some people would attribute to these issues?

I don't understand all the upset. If you don't like this stuff, just ignore it.
If you don't like because it is informing others of things you think are unworthy, you are repressing information in a free society.
Free societies are supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas.

As Chairman Mao (seems misplaced, but its a good saying) said "Let a thousand flowers bloom" (in an informational sense).

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, explicitly: do you think Dao should have complied or not?

I think he had every right to stay on. I also think faced with three burly thugs I might consider whether now is the best time to assert my rights.

 

[WWGD]

We crossed a bit, so at risk of repetition...

By applying *some* (any) sort of logic to the level of severity of the "injustice". Yes, it is a matter of opinion and yes it is reasonable for reasonable people to disagree about how to rank events, but this event was *so spectacularly/absurdly over-outraged*, there shouldn't be much of an argument about that when pressed to make an argument that isn't just pure emotion. IE; almost nobody will say this event was "good", but at the same time, almost nobody will suggest this event was as bad as a murder (of which there were probably about 40 that day in the USA).

I'm not suggesting a rule, nor is @XZ923. It's just the feeling that over-outrage is tiring. What I would suggest in response - that I know I will never get - is that I wish people would be more rational. But the best I can hope for is as social media matures and loses its lustre, The Outragers will grow tired as well, and people will stop paying attention.

I hear the news divisions of TV stations were not expected to be money makers for the stations until relatively recently, maybe the pre-internet era. Their coverage was staid and sober back then. Now that this has changed, and these divisions must compete against 1000s of other channels, the internet, etc.,and make money in the process, outrage is one of the few weapons they have for winning, or at least the weapon they have chosen to use primarily. Cheaper and easier than quality, in-depth , thoughtful coverage of the news.

 

[XZ923]

Your "common sense" assumption that you can decide for others if some event is more significant that another wrt to amount of media it gets based amount of physical damage that occurs to people is simplistic.

There are many things in our complex society that could trump a death, such as:

• a major hitherto undetected chemical spill
• depletion of ground water in certain areas of the country
  
• a major political candidate in collusion with a adversarial foreign power
• political covering up of climate change by destroying climate data

Should any mention of deaths be suppressed because they don't reach the levels on importance that some people would attribute to these issues?

I don't understand all the upset. If you don't like this stuff, just ignore it.
If you don't like because it is informing others of things you think are unworthy, you are repressing information in a free society.
Free societies are supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas.

As Chairman Mao (seems misplaced, but its a good saying) said "Let a thousand flowers bloom" (in an informational sense).

I give up. I don't know how to get it through to you that I'm not arguing for the repression of free speech; I'm instead suggesting your reaction to said free speech should be determined by logic instead of knee-jerk emotion. I'm suggesting you think critically and evaluate overall context instead of simply going along with the way you're "supposed" to feel. I've said this several times and you still keep posting these ideas that I'm "suppressing" people. If you want to get angry and rant every time the media tells you to, that's your right.

The last line you posted made me laugh. First, it wasn't "let a thousand flowers bloom", it was "let a hundred flowers bloom" and those that did "bloom" were largely executed by Mao's government. So yes, it is very misplaced in an argument about free speech. Although the fact that you cited a brutal communist murderer gives me a better idea where you're coming from. Shall we discuss Stalin's humanitarian record next?

 

[BillTre]

I give up. I don't know how to get it through to you that I'm not arguing for the repression of free speech; I'm instead suggesting your reaction to said free speech should be determined by logic instead of knee-jerk emotion. I'm suggesting you think critically and evaluate overall context instead of simply going along with the way you're "supposed" to feel. I've said this several times and you still keep posting these ideas that I'm "suppressing" people. If you want to get angry and rant every time the media tells you to, that's your right.

I am not being emotional, nor am I freaking out and giving up on the solid ideas of free speech that have made this country great.
You sure have not explained how what you suggest is not repressive.
It sounds like you only want capitulation to your ideas while ignoring all others.

 

[XZ923]

I am not being emotional, nor am I freaking out and giving up on the solid ideas of free speech that have made this country great.
You sure have not explained how what you suggest is not repressive.
It sounds like you only want capitulation to your ideas while ignoring all others.

You seriously think it's repressive to suggest people think critically and within overall context?

Nor have I demanded capitulation. In fact I specifically said:

If you want to get angry and rant every time the media tells you to, that's your right.

I don't know how to explain this any simpler to you. I fully support your right to spend your life's brainpower railing at the viral ills of the internet if that's what you choose. I'm simply suggesting that this is not the most productive use of your time. Ultimately, however, you are the arbiter of your time and you can do with it what you will. My opinion on the matter is in no way coercive of your right to choose for yourself, and therefore there is no repression or demand for capitulation.

 

[WWGD]

May I intercede and just ask that all parties ignore the (sub)discussion on free speech? You all made your points but now you are talking at cross from each other.

 

[vela]

I think he had every right to stay on. I also think faced with three burly thugs I might consider whether now is the best time to assert my rights.

In hindsight, Dao might think it would have been wiser to capitulate to United's demands. At the time, Dao and the other passengers probably never imagined the airline would resort to violence to remove a customer from a flight. That's what the uproar is about, not that it was "only" assault as opposed to, say, murder. American society is based around business, but it's not "make money at any cost." The other side of the conversation is that we expect fairness; it's "make as much money as you can following the rules." United violated this rule of society, which is why people have reacted so strongly.

Perhaps this incident may embolden some individuals to act out inappropriately in the future, but it also sends a strong reminder to United and other businesses that they need to treat their customers with respect. I expect that if Dao had "willingly" given up his seat and complained after the fact to the airline, nothing would have really changed, and United would have continued with its poor treatment of customers.

 

[jtbell]

United just can't catch a break:

United Airlines investigates giant bunny death (BBC News)

 

[russ_watters]

In hindsight, Dao might think it would have been wiser to capitulate to United's demands. At the time, Dao and the other passengers probably never imagined the airline would resort to violence to remove a customer from a flight.

I sure hope most of the other passengers are/were not as childish/naive as that. A very similar example:

When I was too young to remember - as my mother tells the story - I didn't want to leave a department store. So my mom yanked-on my arm, perhaps even just picking me up by it or dragging me...just as I decided to use the "go limp" defense. Which dislocated my shoulder and led to a trip to the emergency room. Eventually, I learned:

1. You don't always get to decide if you are allowed to be somewhere.
2. If you are somewhere that you aren't suppose to be, authority figures can remove you by force.
3. No matter how gently they remove you by force or passively you resist, it is possible to get hurt.

A 2-4 year old can forgiven for not understanding this. A G.A.M. cannot.

Perhaps this incident may embolden some individuals to act out inappropriately in the future, but it also sends a strong reminder to United and other businesses that they need to treat their customers with respect. I expect that if Dao had "willingly" given up his seat and complained after the fact to the airline, nothing would have really changed, and United would have continued with its poor treatment of customers.

What poor treatment? What are we talking about here -- assault and battery or bumping people from their seats? If Dao had acted appropriately, we wouldn't be having this conversation because all parties would have acted roughly appropriately!

Look, I get that airlines are unpopular and I agree that some of their policies are poor in terms of customer service. But I am never a fan of doing wrong in order to provoke a wronger reaction for the sake of discussion of a policy. Not to be overly dramatic, but that's a terrorism tactic. Here, it means wrongly connecting the normal - if annoying and sometimes chaotically applied - tactic of bumping to assault and battery. Bumping is not assault and battery.

 

[russ_watters]

I think he had every right to stay on. I also think faced with three burly thugs I might consider whether now is the best time to assert my rights.

Fair enough. I suspect that as a result of this, airlines are going to put some work into clarifying those rights in their policies, because I believe this matches their intent and is or was a common practice.

...but that doesn't necessarily mean people won't still assume or demand that once in their seat they have a right to stay there.

 

[Borg]

Spirit Airline customers are terrible - Violence Erupts at a Florida Airport After Spirit Airlines Cancellations.

Arrest reports assert that those detained were threatening bodily harm to the airline employees and challenging them to fights. All three of the people who were arrested were charged with disorderly conduct, inciting a riot and resisting arrest.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

No doubt, 9/11 has contributed to the increasing angst over this type of issue, but I feel there is a growing culture of entitlement and disrespect for authority that is also contributing.

Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.

While it is clear that the airline had the right to prevent any passenger from boarding and taking a seat, it is less clear that they had the proper right to remove a peaceful and non-threatening passenger once seated on the plane or that those acting on their behalf had the authority to do it.

If the airline was acting withing the proper bounds of their authority, their henchmen would likely not have faced professional consequences for their actions, and they would likely not have been so quick to settle out of court with the passenger who was forcefully removed.

 

[XZ923]

Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.

While it is clear that the airline had the right to prevent any passenger from boarding and taking a seat, it is less clear that they had the proper right to remove a peaceful and non-threatening passenger once seated on the plane or that those acting on their behalf had the authority to do it.

If the airline was acting withing the proper bounds of their authority, their henchmen would likely not have faced professional consequences for their actions, and they would likely not have been so quick to settle out of court with the passenger who was forcefully removed.

I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue is forcibly resisting an authority without imminent threat of injury. I very strongly support your assertion that we should question authority. If you're being arrested, you have every right to know why you're being arrested and insist on the officers' names and badge numbers, as well as speaking your mind about the matter to any length you choose (you'd be advised not to since the prosecutor will likely find a way to twist whatever you say against you in court, but you certainly have the right to talk). The issue in this case was forcibly, physically resisting the legal authority, especially when they were making a non-violent request. Dr. Dao had every right to voice his displeasure, insist on their names and badge numbers, and file a lawsuit. He could have walked down the aisle shouting obscenities about the officers, the airlines, their questionable parentage, etc. if he chose to, then called a lawyer the moment he was off the plane to get the lawsuit started. But he did need to comply with their order. If everyone gets to decide on the spot if they're going to cooperate with the authorities we descend into anarchy mighty quick.

IMO the basic rule of thumb is if you don't like what the authority figure is doing, gather all relevant data and take them to court. There is no shortage of lawyers in this country willing to take such a case. You can probably find at least one who will do it pro bono.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We know some things we didn't at the time.

• Two of the "henchmen" were wearing attire that says "Police" even though they had been specifically told that they were not allowed to do that.
• Both the report of the "henchmen" and the report of the gate agent's supervisor claimed Dao struck first, This is not what the video showed.
• The flight crew decided not to get involved with this. So there was no "interfering with a flight crew"

That combination looks very bad for United. You have a contractual dispute (where most legal opinion is that Dao was in the right) which United chose to resolve by force. To do this they falsely accused Dao of a crime (and since this was done by a supervisor it looks a lot like this is their policy- at least informal policy) and called the "henchmen" who were impersonating police. They set in motion a chain of events that resulted in a man having the snot beat out of him so they wouldn't have to give out $200 worth of travel credits. Of course they didn't want this dragging out in the courts for months.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If everyone gets to decide on the spot if they're going to cooperate with the authorities we descend into anarchy mighty quick.

What about people who are only pretending to be authorities? The actual authorities - the flight crew - did not get involved. The "police" were merely dressed as police. Do I have to do whatever the Village People tell me to do?

 

[WWGD]

. Do I have to do whatever the Village People tell me to do?

Only if you are arrested at the...YMCA.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue is forcibly resisting an authority without imminent threat of injury.

There is no evidence that the passenger used or threatened force. He resisted fake police passively, simply by refusing to comply with orders that they did not really have the authority to give. The fake police escalated the issue from words to the use of force. Claiming the passenger "forcibly" resisted is either woefully misinformed of the facts or dishonest.

As an analogy, consider a Walmart employee stopping you on the way out of Walmart and wanting you to hand over an item you just purchased for some kind of security inspection. Real law enforcement officers may reasonably make that order if they have probable cause that a crime was committed. However, you are not "forcibly" resisting a Walmart employee if you just keep on walking and ignore them. State laws vary, but ordinarily, security employees do not have law enforcement powers to detain you or to give you orders with a burden of compliance. If you've done nothing wrong, you can just keep walking and ignore them.

 

[XZ923]

There is no evidence that the passenger used or threatened force. He resisted fake police passively, simply by refusing to comply with orders that they did not really have the authority to give. The fake police escalated the issue from words to the use of force. Claiming the passenger "forcibly" resisted is either woefully misinformed of the facts or dishonest.

As an analogy, consider a Walmart employee stopping you on the way out of Walmart and wanting you to hand over an item you just purchased for some kind of security inspection. Real law enforcement officers may reasonably make that order if they have probable cause that a crime was committed. However, you are not "forcibly" resisting a Walmart employee if you just keep on walking and ignore them. State laws vary, but ordinarily, security employees do not have law enforcement powers to detain you or to give you orders with a burden of compliance. If you've done nothing wrong, you can just keep walking and ignore them.

Actually, the issue of a merchant's protections on their legal property (very important distinction) are much blurrier than you're making them out to be. I'd recommend reading the following as a quick brush-up:

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/store-security-and-your-rights

As you correctly note, laws vary from state to state, but virtually all laws provide proprietors with some form of reasonable discretion in policing how people behave on their property. If a manager at an electronics store sees you put a video game in your pocket, he can detain you, search, and retrieve the property. You could certainly file suit if you wish, but you'll lose in court when the manager shows the security footage that gave him probable cause. To use an additional example, a bouncer at a nightclub can legally force somebody out if that person is causing a disturbance; even though legally that would be an assault it is permitted under that circumstance.

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). I believe in court the key questions would be:

1. Was Dr. Dao acting in a way that reasonably caused harm to United's business and/or their ability to conduct legal business?
2. Was United authorized to use force to remove him?

IMHO the answer to #1 is no, at least no more so than everyone else on board, and #2 becomes moot in the case of #1 being "no", which is why a lawsuit is warranted. Also keep in mind that anything having to do with aviation is under federal jurisdiction which creates a whole different wave of complications. United settled quickly because they want this over with; Dr. Dao was probably advised to settle to avoid the bureaucratic entanglements of the FAA.