United Airlines has doctor dragged off flight because he refuses to "voluntarily" be removed.

Probably not. Neither did he, or anyone else who hadn't already disembarked.

No, and I'm not accusing anyone else of doing the same. I haven't seen any kind of statement from the passenger who was taken off. Have you? All I've seen is a single video, some corporate "statements" that say fuck all, and a lot of outrage and conjecture.

What I will say is that I don't have the full picture here and I don't think anyone else in this thread does either. One video, regardless of how shocking, does not tell the whole story.

Yes. When the men with the police jackets show up, it's time to go. Call your lawyer from the terminal and sue the shit out of them later if you think you have a case.

There's some interesting discussion happening in /r/law about this. According to those peeps (at least some of whom are probably actual lawyers) the consensus is that he might have a civil case on breach of contract but refusing to leave the plane when asked is most likely indefensible even if the crew were in the wrong. If someone asks you to leave their property and you don't live there, there aren't a lot of scenarios where you can lawfully refuse.

That's all it is at this point. The video's gone viral and the court of public opinion has decided. Shock and outrage. Who needs facts when you have feelings?

None of it matters anyway. Like I said, United will give him a pile of cash to make it go away. The whole thing gets swept under the rug in a couple of weeks, maybe a month at most. Outrage doesn't really sustain for long.

It's not really my intent to defend United as such. More so just to try to be impartial. I don't know enough about it to say anything meaningful and I find myself suspicious of anyone who says they do.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 11, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 11, 2017 ---

I suspect United has policies outlining all of this stuff that don't afford the kind of flexibility you seem to be envisioning in the first place. I don't know that there were seats available for the crew on other flights, but I can certainly see how it would be valuable to them to make sure the crew arrives together. I don't know when their Louisville flight needed to depart, or what other obligations the crew needed to fulfill at the airport.

It is at the very least plausible to me that the most viable economic option for United under the circumstances was to cut this guy a check for $1300 and get him off the plane, even given the options you describe.

And of course they didn't factor the negative press into their process, nobody knew this was going to blow up before it actually happened.

 

Those are part of the problems IMO. This situation isn't a simple "greater than or less than" math choice. There should be flexibility involved and/or more of a real world sanity check (and check on legal/corporate procedure) before the call is made to physically remove someone.


As a sidenote, the impression I get from most of your posts in here is that you are lumping everyone in this thread who thinks UA did something wrong into a shocked and outraged lynch mob. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, or I'm the only one getting that impression, I'm not sure. But your first post made it seem that you hadn't even read my entire OP. If you had, I don't think you would've gotten the impression that I was shocked and outraged. Perhaps your initial replies were painted by things you read elsewhere on the internet more than what you read in this thread? IMO no one here is really throwing a huge fit over it, just pointing out it should've been handled better. I think you would probably even agree it should've been handled better, or at the very least, it should be motivation to improve such situations in the future.

And to be completely transparent, I made the thread more as an excuse to try to foster some real discussion in here outside of the "daily" type threads. So if I did come across as shocked and outraged to people in here, it wasn't my intent.

 

Much of the initial uproar in the media indicated that this man should have been removed from the seat lottery because of his status as a physician and his insistence that he was needed by his patients back home. Some commentators went so far as to indicate that doctors should have special privileges, that their duties are such that they should always be granted immunity. The argument here is that this man was a dishonored physician with no real duties, and therefore was making unbiased claims to back his refusal to leave his seat.

He still should be treated with respect and grace. I previously responded with two alternative scenarios that would have been respectful to all involved. I stand by that response.

 

There's a mix of debating specific points here and commentary on the general reaction outside of here, which perhaps muddies my points. For clarity:

1. Disagreeing with your OP doesn't mean I didn't read it. I chose initially to address the greater mood surrounding this whole affair, because it reeks of lynchmob and has me on edge. I apologize if this has made it seem that I'm mischaracterizing your position.

2. I'm (still) not convinced that United acted outside of the law. There are a lot of assumptions being made. Some of them are bound to be wrong. You can make a case that the policies United has set around these sorts of cases aren't moral but expecting a corporation to be moral is silly. If corporations were moral we wouldn't need labour laws. You can also say the law is bad and will get zero argument from me on that one, but it still doesn't make sense to be upset at United employees if they acted within it. You're saying that they didn't but I still don't see your proof of that.

3. This issue would not have gotten any kind of traction if it hadn't been accompanied by a shocking video. Your specific response may not be fueled by shock and outrage, but the overall shitstorm surrounding this event most certainly has been.

4. These two commentaries from me, though happening concurrently, are not necessarily related.

Respectfully, you have no basis for any kind of statements about what I would or would not do. My wife at four months post-birth is well recovered and more than capable of taking care of our baby alone for a few days if need be, my work is remote and my office, while nice, isn't terribly relevant, and even if those things weren't true, getting arrested and stranded in a foreign city helps nothing.

I can feel empathy for the man and also believe that he acted wrongly. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

I said that, not because you disagreed, but because in your first response you asked very basic questions about my ideas and opinions that I'd already addressed in detail in my OP. It gave the impression you didn't read past the first few lines of my OP, assumed outrage, and loaded your own argument against assumed outrage. Not a huge deal, just a bit ironic is all.

It's being widely reported, based on eyewitness accounts, in reputable news circles including articles I've linked here. UA has not denied it in any statements I've found. That is a preponderance of evidence for me. YMMV.

The exact law is here:Fly Rights

In part:

Here is the latest statement from UA CEO Oscar Munoz:

United CEO apologizes in full: ‘No one should ever be mistreated this way’

If you take him at his word, he's outraged, disappointed, angry, and says the policies allowing this all to happen are broken and will be addressed publicly in the next 3 weeks.

 

I see two articles from you (not counting the latest one). The first one recounts an internal United memo where CEO Munoz rehashed the events. His phrasing seems to imply that the rules were followed but the outcome was regrettable. The second one has already been discussed and is regarding the statement of rights the passenger should have received. I still don't see a compelling reason to assume that he did or did not receive it. Passengers on the plane didn't see it happen but it's entirely plausible that they handed it to him in the terminal after he'd been removed, since that's not likely a thing they had on board the plane to begin with. The law doesn't state when he has to receive the document, just that it must be presented as part of the process.

You seem to want to default to assuming he didn't get it at all. I'm willing to assume competence on the part of the crew. There's really no way to know unless someone directly involved comes out and makes a clear statement. It's all just spitballing.

I also don't see a compelling reason for United to comment on whether or not their actions were legal, regardless of whether they were or not. I'm sure their lawyers would be gnashing their teeth at even a hint of anyone wanting to do so. What could they possibly gain by coming out and saying "no guys, what we did was totally legal?" Expecting a response from them on that subject isn't very realistic as far as I'm concerned.

"Corporate CEO engages in damage control following PR nightmare." Meh?

To be clear, I don't think United are the good guys here. I just (again) think that we don't have all the facts. There's a lot that we don't know and that really can't be known. And I think the backlash surrounding it is way out of proportion given the circumstances. That's not a statement specific to anyone here, it's just a general observation.

 

The article linked earlier specifically mentions that UA's written procedure doesn't call for handing the rights of carriage over in writing. Even though the law does require it. So are you assuming the crew was competent and followed their employer's procedure? If so, he didn't get it in writing. Because that's part of what is broken here.




Addressing the part of your post that disappeared as I was typing this reply, out of curiousity, did you read the entire OP before replying to the thread the first time? Not that it's required, just genuinely curious.

 

The part of my post that disappeared was removed because I decided it's not really relevant and further discussion about it is distracting from the thread. But yes, I did read the entire OP. I chose not to address it directly in my initial post. I see how this has caused confusion and I apologize.

I rejected your alternatives because I didn't and still don't consider them realistic. That's just not how the corporate world works.

 

I would have taken $800+ a seat upgrade on the next flight... unless I was traveling for a funeral.

I've jumped up and offered my seat for less.

I do think United handled this in a completely backwards fashion. But I have previously offered my seat in exchange for bonus miles, a free hotel stay, and a meal voucher...

 

Dude, if I'm coming across as upset, I'm not. One of the things TFP has been lacking for a long time is having people engaged in a disagreement without getting irate, throwing insults, or getting bent out of shape. I'm not taking offense at your remarks, and hope you aren't at mine. No apologies needed, I just enjoy the engagement.

Though I'd argue that we live in very different parts of the corporate world. Thing things that I do, and my company does, to jump through hoops to take care of customers is very different than how this was handled. Even when it means a temporary hit to the bottom line. Not saying we are perfect, or win every time. But I cannot remember once in 20+ years (as of a week ago actually) me feeling that I had to mistreat a customer due to some company policy.

 

You've never once in twenty years had to refuse a client service due to circumstances outside your control? That's surprising.

I think it's important to keep it in mind that it was not United employees who removed him from the plane. The police did that, after he refused multiple requests to leave peacefully.