Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No - there are all sorts of ways to appropriately deal with authorities - we don't have only Dao's response or "best pouty face."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf747
In contrast to this story is another story about someone getting kicked off of a flight. No injuries though. It's also to show that other airlines wrongly deboard seated passengers, not just United. It also shows a disabled man handling his situation in a more adult manner.
You both make good points. The side benefits of what this not-so-good doctor did is expose the exploitative nature of the way airlines handle overbooking or other needed appropriation of space on an airplane. Because appropriation is what it is. The airlines can use the free market and bid for someone to leave the flight. Yes, the bidding may reach $10,000 in cash (not travel vouchers or Monopoly money) plus next-available seating to destination or return home.
But there is no reason that airlines should be privileged to commandeer a seat any more than you and I are so privileged. That is socialism or welfare for corporations. International flights may be different; the flights may not be to or from free-market countries. But the U.S. is one and that doctor had a right to his seat and carriage until he gave it up. And I believe that the contracts of carriage are contracts of adhesion. About as good as a circus-goer contracting away his right to damages if a lion escapes into the stands.
Sigh. What I've said over and over again is that his past BEHAVIOR (not just his criminal record) does have bearing on his present behavior. Are you saying that a pattern of behavior over the course of a lifetime has no bearing on a person's current behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Correct. Whether Dr Dao's behavior was a recurring pattern or not - it's precisely his behavior and the response to it that we're discussing - on a global basis - and as a result the policies of the airlines will be examined and adjusted.
One problem is that airlines and other custoemr service companies and for that matter retail stores have to be able to handle the Dr. Dao's of the world as well as people who are smooth as silk in their behavior.
One problem is that airlines and other custoemr service companies and for that matter retail stores have to be able to handle the Dr. Dao's of the world as well as people who are smooth as silk in their behavior.
This. Would the people excoriating Dr. Dao in this thread be singing the same tune if he was autistic, or suffering from dementia?
You both make good points. The side benefits of what this not-so-good doctor did is expose the exploitative nature of the way airlines handle overbooking or other needed appropriation of space on an airplane. Because appropriation is what it is. The airlines can use the free market and bid for someone to leave the flight. Yes, the bidding may reach $10,000 in cash (not travel vouchers or Monopoly money) plus next-available seating to destination or return home.
But there is no reason that airlines should be privileged to commandeer a seat any more than you and I are so privileged. That is socialism or welfare for corporations. International flights may be different; the flights may not be to or from free-market countries. But the U.S. is one and that doctor had a right to his seat and carriage until he gave it up. And I believe that the contracts of carriage are contracts of adhesion. About as good as a circus-goer contracting away his right to damages if a lion escapes into the stands.
The issue I find is that it may not be socialism but just that people fear government involvement in anything even if it is truly needed. United is a company that needs to get slapped around by government. The late bumps whether for a last minute "must fly crew" or a big shot are not fair and are not stipulated anywhere in the contract of carriage other than a vague catch-all.
She was found "Not Guilty" so that's fairly meaningful in itself. This woman simply complained about not having a pillow on the flight, which is a perfectly legitimate complaint. She didn't threaten anyone or assault anyone.
There is a common thread in many of these stories: the United flight crew seem to label anyone "disruptive" or a "safety risk" whenever there is any kind of conflict or even a simple complaint. They seem to have virtually no conflict resolution skills for dealing with passengers.
But security histrionics are the default conflict resolution of choice in the post-9/11 era. Now any airline employee has enough power to destroy anyone's day (or apparently have their face rearranged) for any reason, simply by labeling them a risk to security, which can be a matter of their personal opinion and nothing else. For this privilege, they're accountable to absolutely no one except corporate management.
I just feel like traveling through an airport is like walking on egg shells. Very mindful and careful of what we do and trying not to upset the collective. Stay in line, keep head down, march on to your destination. And half the posts on here are justifying that behavior.
You both make good points. The side benefits of what this not-so-good doctor did is expose the exploitative nature of the way airlines handle overbooking or other needed appropriation of space on an airplane. Because appropriation is what it is. The airlines can use the free market and bid for someone to leave the flight. Yes, the bidding may reach $10,000 in cash (not travel vouchers or Monopoly money) plus next-available seating to destination or return home.
But there is no reason that airlines should be privileged to commandeer a seat any more than you and I are so privileged. That is socialism or welfare for corporations. International flights may be different; the flights may not be to or from free-market countries. But the U.S. is one and that doctor had a right to his seat and carriage until he gave it up. And I believe that the contracts of carriage are contracts of adhesion. About as good as a circus-goer contracting away his right to damages if a lion escapes into the stands.
Actually, I still question that he had such a contract, or such a right. The airline changed their policy of involuntarily bumping of seated passengers only after this incident. That means that prior to this incident they had the right to do so. It's amazing that it took this long for something to happen. This is not the first time that they involuntarily bumped seated passengers. Now that the policy has changed, you could now say the boarded passenger has the right to stay.
After saying all the above, I do not agree with the way United handled this. They should have offered more until someone took the offer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
