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.
Since blockading private property is initiation of violence, not only should be not receive a nickel in any settlement, he should be forced to pay all the economic damages of United Airlines which he caused by acting like a savage blockading banshee and endangering everyone around him. By escalating the situation, he exposed the other passengers to further delays and the possibility of violence against their persons.
His injuries are HIS FAULT, and he earned and deserved them when he decided not to yield property he did not own to those who did.
Perhaps now that we know he might have been a compulsive gambler, it could explain why he decided to do what he did. An admixture of insanity and the desire to collect a payday. Would it be unreasonable to imagine gambling debts that needed to be paid?
You seem to have a fixation on equating an airplane seat to a piece of real estate which is apples to oranges in the way you do it.
He did not scream as a result of being manhandled. He screamed as a prophylactic, attempting to use little-girl frequency sound waves to paralyze the security personnel. Perhaps he thought that by emitting audio in this way, that security personnel would mistakenly snap to the conclusion that he was a transgendered small girl trapped in the body of an aging Asian gentleman. And thereby exhibit restraint during their extraction. It didn't work.
We've now moved into arguing for arguments sake...
Because it hasn't. The emotionalized manner by which this "national conversation" has taken place will prompt the airline to look contrite, offer some petty compensation (by their metrics), make a few petty changes in operations (which may or may not even stick for more than a few years), and then they'll go on their merry way, unencumbered by the kind of regulation that is truly necessary. Instead of turning this into steam for a people's movement to put the "corporatists" back where they belong, as servants of society instead of its directors, what we get is impotent petulance.
Welcome to America in the 2010s.
No: You give me a break. We're taking big picture, how things generally work. If you're trying to hang your hat on what happens in 4% of the country then have that discussion with someone else.
The negligence laws ARE big picture - how things generally work. Since I spend a fair amount of time analyzing them - I can assure you it's not just 4% of the time.
Obviously this is something you are quite passionate about.
How do YOU think Americans should address our corporate culture? Profits above people in every situation? That is what this is about. United Airlines is just one quite visual example of same.
Overbooking is not the problem - IF you send the clients on their way happy. Plenty of airlines do it without issue.
Instead of stopping at $800 they could have gone to $1100 and he would probably have walked away. The difference between Dr. Dao, being happy and him suing is probably a matter of about $300 in additional travel - and their process to manage it.
Obviously this is something you are quite passionate about. How do YOU think Americans should address our corporate culture?
The first step is being able to admit the problem - not blame others for supposedly victimizing you but rather admitting your portion of the responsibility for how things are. We agree that we want the airlines to operate differently. What shockingly few people in this thread are willing to admit is that the airlines are operating how they should based on the legitimate obligations placed on them, so to achieve what we want we have to change their obligations.
The next stage of the realization is that none of us can do it ourselves, and in reality we need an overwhelming majority of Americans to agree and actively work in that direction because, due to our past failures we have given businesses the keys they need to make it even harder than just getting a critical mass of people together to achieve change. Now we need an overwhelming majority.
The next stage of the realization is that we all have different perspectives and objectives that, if that is left unaddressed, will invariably result in infighting within the contingent trying to bring about the changes desired, infighting that "lies about what matters" and thereby dilutes the power of the collected effort so much that we never can achieve a critical mass, much less the overwhelming majority necessary. The hardest part of it will always be getting enough people to set aside their differences in objectives within the effort in favor of adopting and aggressively pursuing a much more limited set of objectives that the overwhelming majority can all abide.
Egos get in the way of that. People tend to think that their special flavor of the problem is more important than other people's, and even when that's absolutely true, it still wrecks any chance of change, because it alienates those whose special objectives are marginalized in favor of the special objectives of others. You end up with a smaller group much more passionately devoted to change - emphasis on the word "smaller" ... read: not an overwhelming majority. Focus on the objectives that are common - that are shared "by all" - is essential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro
Plenty of airlines do it without issue.
Proof? Please present objective evidence that "plenty" of airlines were viewed far superior to how United was viewed with regard to satisfaction with being bumped.
He wasn't removed from the plane because he was a criminal. It had nothing to do with that. United needed the seats for their employees. The fact is he paid for his seat just like all of us do. Why should any of us be forcibly removed because we refuse to give up our seat which we paid for.
Why do you continue to insist on misrepresenting what I said?
I did not say he was removed from the plane because he was a criminal.
I think all of us have the right to expect that we would not be injured in such a situation.
I suggested no such thing. I said if his intent to sue as he clearly stated he COULD have cooperated and still preserved virtually the same lawsuit. I didn't say he SHOULD claim bruising and back injuries, but that he COULD. Lets face it most sue happy people exaggerate their claims........its the American way. Wouldn't be worth as much as the blood/injuries in his suit, but public outrage which is a large part of his suit would have been the same with a lot less trauma for him.
If you cooperate with LEO, then yes you have the right to expect you wont be injured. Once you resist, either by yelling, flailing your arms, or even passively making it difficult for them to do what they have said they were going to do all bets about what you should expect are off and you yourself are opting in for possible injury. People who want to do that..........have at it.
Or, keep Rosa Parks in mind, who when told she was going to be arrested, said you may, let them arrest her, went to jail, bailed herself out and went to court. The rest of that story being history.
I said if his intent to sue as he clearly stated he COULD have cooperated and still preserved virtually the same lawsuit.
Well, let's be fair: The only reason why this guy is going to get millions is because he got hurt. If his overriding objective was a big payout, then the only way to achieve it would be to force LEOs to physically remove him and ensure that he was badly hurt in the process. Otherwise, we would never have heard of this situation, and he'd have gotten 400% of the segment fare in IDB compensation and perhaps an overnight at a motel in Chicago and a few meal vouchers, if he was connecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
If you cooperate with LEO, then yes you have the right to expect you wont be injured. Once you resist, either by yelling, flailing your arms, or even passively making it difficult for them to do what they have said they were going to do all bets about what you should expect are off and you yourself are opting in for possible injury. People who want to do that..........have at it.
This is a really critical aspect of the issue. For as long as I can remember there have been people who have deliberately gotten hit by cars so they could sue for feigned or real injuries. This invariably drives up the insurance rates for all of us. One of the potential outcomes from this situation this past week is a new breed of such folks, aiming to get hurt by airport police because they know the scrutiny is turned up and the likelihood that cities and airlines will be motivated to have their insurance companies throw money at the problem to keep deflecting it off of them and onto the next guy.
Don't be surprised to see a new fee added to airline tickets, a "compensation fee" perhaps, to cover the costs of legal action against airlines. The industry could even create a mutual insurance company for that, and given the power that wealth has in our country, easily get the government to ratify applying the fee without having to disclose it as part of the base fare, but rather only as an added fee just like the airport improvement fees.
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.
