MERGED United Passenger Kicked Off/NO FIGHTING

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Post Reply
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by skb12172 »

I have a good friend from high school who is a United pilot. He went the civilian route, not military. He is defending the airline as enthusiastically as any of the military guys, for what it's worth.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Greg »

See what certain airline people - flight crew, possibly gate personnel - don't seem to understand, is that that 'default to compulsion' mindset that helped produce this United situation, is horrible.

People subjected to it come to hate it, and come to hate the people who do it to them.

But the people doing it fail to see anything wrong. So they default to compulsion, instead of the usual 'find a mutually agreeable trade or compromise' technique that most other people, who don't have gov't blessed hot and cold running compulsion on tap, are forced to use.

Even in the military, which is a system where following orders can be at least as important to survival as on an airliner, there is a robust system in place to differentiate between good orders and bad orders - orders that are unlawful and invalid. In fact, you even get in trouble for following a bad order.

Airliners are more extreme than military regimentation, where you don't even have civil rights. Apparently nobody has ever thought to consider the topic of what lawful and unlawful orders are on an airliner, what the acceptable scope of flight crew authority really is.

Flight crew seem all too aware of this, and seem willing to resort to 'obey or the Feds got my back' all too readily, for things that would, in light of common sense, really have nothing to do with the safe operation of the vehicle. WE NOTICED.
Last edited by Greg on Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Greg »

skb12172 wrote:I have a good friend from high school who is a United pilot. He went the civilian route, not military. He is defending the airline as enthusiastically as any of the military guys, for what it's worth.
The only people I know on FB defending United are a pair of hardcore liberals. One is a married man - not sure what his husband's take on this is.

You'd think people so preoccupied with 'being oppressed by the system' would try less hard to justify oppression. But what do I know?
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Netpackrat »

Greg wrote:See what airline people in particular don't seem to understand
Please check your friendly fire; I'm on your side, along with most other mechanics, I think.
Airliners are more extreme than military regimentation, where you don't even have civil rights. Apparently nobody has ever thought to consider the topic of what lawful and unlawful orders are on an airliner, what the acceptable scope of flight crew authority really is.
That is basically correct. However, I think you will find that those laws and regulations mostly date to a time when the airlines didn't get their definition of "service" from a manual on animal husbandry.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
First Shirt
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by First Shirt »

Interesting article here:

https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/the-co ... tters.html

The good part:
Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, which would have been a violation of 14 CFR 250.2a (if the flight were overbooked, as United had originally claimed). Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been "reserved" and "confirmed" to accommodate him specifically.
But there ain't many troubles that a man caint fix, with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six."
Lindy Cooper Wisdom
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Greg »

Netpackrat wrote:
Greg wrote:See what airline people in particular don't seem to understand
Please check your friendly fire; I'm on your side, along with most other mechanics, I think.
Airliners are more extreme than military regimentation, where you don't even have civil rights. Apparently nobody has ever thought to consider the topic of what lawful and unlawful orders are on an airliner, what the acceptable scope of flight crew authority really is.
That is basically correct. However, I think you will find that those laws and regulations mostly date to a time when the airlines didn't get their definition of "service" from a manual on animal husbandry.
Sorry, I should clean that up. Was being careless... what I was thinking was 'flight crew and occasionally gate staff' what came out was 'airline people'.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
Weetabix
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Weetabix »

I'd be interested to know the exact chain of events. If I understand it correctly, it went something like:
- full plane
- flight crew needs transport
- gate agent selects passengers to deplane (or someone else decided?)
- flight attendants inform passengers (or someone else?)
- three leave, one does not
- (then some other event or sequence of events)
- Chicago PD(?) beat the guy and drag him off

I'm kind of interested in a few things:
- who decided the level of persuasion at each step?
- after the Dr declared he wasn't going, did anyone else volunteer to take his place, or was it a mild version of a Kitty Genovessee thing?
- how was the deadhead crew received when they boarded?
- who is the lowest level person actually responsible for the whole thing? Not the CEO, but who could have controlled this?
- what are the rules, regulations, laws, or whatever that make this sequence of events OK in that person's mind?
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
User avatar
Weetabix
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Weetabix »

scipioafricanus wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... eyre-wrong
Capitalism is unpopular for four reasons: banks, health-insurance companies, cable providers, and airlines. These all have something in common.
It's CRONY capitalism.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
User avatar
Kommander
Posts: 3761
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:13 am

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Kommander »

Weetabix I read that the replacement crew was booed as they got on. Not really their fault but they were the most immediately available targets for the passengers displeasure. Also I'm not sure its fair to compare this with Genovessee. Its one thing to ignore someones calls for help when being attacked by a criminal, its another when the state is doing it. When the cops showed up trying to get involved would likely result in them dragging two people off the pane instead of just one.
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by skb12172 »

Kommander wrote:Weetabix I read that the replacement crew was booed as they got on. Not really their fault but they were the most immediately available targets for the passengers displeasure. Also I'm not sure its fair to compare this with Genovessee. Its one thing to ignore someones calls for help when being attacked by a criminal, its another when the state is doing it. When the cops showed up trying to get involved would likely result in them dragging two people off the pane instead of just one.
Yup and the general public isn't quite ready to take that step...yet.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
Post Reply