I thought the flight was not overbooked.
Except it wasn’t an overbooked flight, even by United’s admission. And even if it were that is not how those are dealt with by any other airline on any other day.
1) It was NOT an overbooked flight.
2) Other airlines block people from boarding, they don't remove people after boarding.
3) Other airlines follow their own policies. United didn't. United's policy is to offer up to $1300 as reimbursement for a bump. Dao was offered only $800 and then forcibly removed. The airline has no one to blame but itself.
Unfortunately, as happens across the country each day, the flight was overbooked — in other words, United had sold more tickets than it had seats available.
The flight was not overbooked with sold tickets.
When you board a boat or ship the captain is THE authority. Same goes for planes. You can be removed for any reason or no reason. The minute this swell head was asked to move he should have complied a any traveler would. We have all suffered inconvenience at one time or the other. This jerk saw a chance for a lawsuit the minute he was asked to leave. Any harm he sustained is his own fault and should NOT be compensated! Unfortunately, too many people love to bash anyone or anything and push our “Litigation is Fun” society. This creep doesn’t deserve a penny. He asked for what he got when he refused to leave. He threw himself in the ring when he refused to comply with the LEGITIMATE REQUEST. AND he is no gladiator.
Is this satire?
The outrage is justified. The outrage is not just about this event. If it was, this event would not have legs. People like me have watched the TSA and United Airlines spew rudeness and heavy handed business practices for over a decade. When this news story came out, we, the traveling public with experience of United, have all witnessed a United act of rudeness.
The original response of United’s president is the real feeling this airline holds. They believe the airline exists to feed the employees. And the employees are against the company, and barely tolerate the customers. There is a stark deference between Southwest and United. On southwest the employees seem happy to have a job. They are fun and friendly. At United, they are there to get a paycheck. They are unhappy and quick to use the most punitive rules to deal with customers. If customers had been treated well, this story would not have snowballed like it has.
Perception is the reality.
Try to explain it all away and you will discover people will believe the video before they believe the explanation.
At this point, regardless of the “truth” Untied is the one that is going to take the hit on all this.
A civil case will decide the truth by that time it will be a very old story and the only thing people will remember is thugs dragging a bloodied passenger off a plane so United could have his seat to an employee.
Even United admits it was a mistake and they changed their policies to correct the mistake.
The author is demonstrating the correct about of corporate fealty our masters require.
Munoz, the CEO of United, said publicly and unequivocally that Dao had nothing to warrant or justify being kicked off the plane. That ends the discussion.
____________________________________________________
Actually not so much. The flight was not overbooked and the doctor paid over $1000.00 for his ticket. They wanted to remove him from his seat so that airline employees could use the seat, it was said that some of those employees needed to be on another flight in the morning and it was imperative that they reach their destination in time to get rest before flying again.
Ok, it is the right of United Airlines to decide who to kick off of a flight but certainly unwise to kick anyone off who has already boarded. They could have avoided this if the employees of the airline had simply checked in before boarding. Much was made about the offer to pay up to $1200.00 to someone who would give up his seat. The DR. paid nearly that much for his 1st class seat I can understand why that was not a motivation for him.
The Security that removed him was not airport security, it was a private security company hired by the airlines.
The Dr., well he seems an idiot, a baby, an a$$hole perhaps but in the suit that will be coming I would rather be on his side than the Airlines. The Airlines would be wise to settle and settle quickly to get this out of the news. They will pay through the nose one way or the other.
There was no safety or security issue, other than those created by UAL's poor customer service.
“No evidence in the video, or anything that has otherwise surfaced, has shown that anyone intentionally tried to harm Dao.”
LMAO!!!!
Did Ray Charles write this ?
“A flicker of uncharacteristic sanity at UMass. “
—
Until the last paragraph.
.
“After all, United approached this overbooked flight in the same way that airlines across the country do every day.”
No it didn’t.
A. 1. The overbooked condition did not exist for the flight. It was full but in fact was not overbooked. 2. Overbooked conditions, when it is an overbooked condition, are almost always handled at the gate, before boarding begins, by offering incentives to passengers BEFORE passengers board the plane, not after.
B. 1. The contract terms of service of a United ticket provide for involuntary failure to be boarded, and overbooking is given as a possible reason it may be applied. But the flight was not overbooked and the passenger was in fact not denied boarding; they were boarded to their rserved seat. 2. The contract terms of service of a United ticket provide for involuntary removal of a passenger after they are boarded. To resolve an overbooked or merely “full flight” condition is not a condition permitting that in United’s own terms of service.
C. United has a number of discrepancies in its own written terms of service that apply to every ticket, and rules it provides its staff on every operations matter. Involuntary removal of passengers is one of those areas of discrepancy. Even though it contravenes United’s own terms of service that apply to every ticket, United’s staff apparently did not contravene what their rule book says they can do.
D. In law, contract law will prevail over an employee operations manual.
“Despite the media’s best efforts to create a narrative, Dao was not an innocent doctor assaulted for trying to get to his patients.”
It is not relevant, legally. United should not have been trying to remove the passenger involuntarily in the first place; they were not on legal grounds to do so, by their own terms of service. Why the passenger did not want to deplane, voluntarily or involuntarily is irrelevant. His right to not agree to it was all the reason he needed.
After Dao dug his feet in, all United did was call the airport police. Anything that occurred after that point was out of its control, and was the responsibility of the police department.
I agree.
“After all, United approached this overbooked flight in the same way that airlines across the country do every day.”
Stopped reading after the above. Given that many lies in a single sentence, I figured the rest of the article would be a complete waste of time.
Dao has a history of frivolous lawsuits, and he was on the phone with his attorney (insisting that he initiate a suite against United) when the police came in to take him off the plane FOR THE SECOND TIME. He obviously intended to precipitate a civil suit — which the airline undoubtedly would try to resolve quietly and out of court — when he snuck back onto the plane.
Whether the flight was overbooked is irrelevant. Even if Dao had been the only passenger on the plane, when the flight attendant tells you you have to get off, YOU HAVE TO GET OFF. It’s the law.
Police have a saying, “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.” IOW, if they come to arrest you, you aren’t going to talk your way out of it. They don’t have that leeway. So shut up, get in the car and call your lawyer after you’ve been booked.
The same applies here. Don’t argue with the FA, take it off the plane and voice your objection to the gate agent.