'Infuriated' United pilots union slams cops for forcibly dragging passenger from plane

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years ago to Culture
42 comments | Share | Flag

While not beating a dead horse intentionally, this is an interesting study in the modern media. When it happened, United was all ag-go defending the fort. Then it became an "oops" type thing, and now has morphed into full blown "blame someone else". What was a "United di well and I stand by them" Tuesday, is now "It was Republic Airlines and the evil police" (never mind United requetsed the evil police to come remove the poor guy). This is almost like a real time laboratory, where we get to see and chronical every change, move, nuance that has occured in the story. Now the United PIlots are feeling the threrat, possibly to their jobs, and have gone on their own offensive, again throwing the "it wasn't us" flag and blaming Republic and the evil police. This is what is going on every day, as media manipulates, and "undisclosed sources" disclose. In such an atmosphere, how much "facts" are to be found? How objective is anyone in this game?
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/infuriated-united-pilots-union-slams-222221180.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Esceptico 7 years ago
    The captain is in command on board. The event happened on board. The captain could have ordered the police to leave. Part of management is this sort of thing. We have all heard the little talk" the Flight Attendants are here primarily for your safety ..." Well, folks, they, too had a responsibility as part of the crew to stop it.

    The aircraft was not overbooked, it was fully booked. There is a major difference and some of the media even got this right.

    Even Munoz admitted Dao was doing nothing wrong when he was brutally assaulted to make room for "must travel" crew that could have gone on another airline or even a charter. So much for "Customer First" at United --- where they now offer either a pillow or a neck brace and have bouncers in the main cabin. Board as a doctor. Leave as a patient is not a great reputation to have.

    When you take a failing airline (United) and merge it with another failing airline (Continental) without having good management in place, what you get is a larger failing airline. "Mistakes were made, but not by me" surfaces again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      True, but remember this, Republc owns most of the feeder lines tht run all the passengers to their final destination, and as such, is essentially the "lowest bidder", they did this with young pilots, most of them fresh from flight school with low hours, who rack up experience in small jets. They may then go to big airlines. To get there, you do NOT rock the boat. Command, as such, is not taught in those schools or jobs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years ago
    Unfortunately “capitalism” is taking another PR hit. Another reason I avoid the term and use “free market” instead.

    http://www.americamagazine.org/politi...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/...

    Here’s an encouraging opposing view:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlOkp...

    I think that “overbooking” by airlines would be much less widespread if there were a true free market in air travel.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 7 years ago
      In my estimation this is the key fact of the whole situation. Not only does overregulation make it too difficult to enter the airline business, but airports and the transport infrastructure that connects to them are built and run by local governments, so naturally there aren't enough slots nor enough competition in the industry to make companies be reasonable. If there were, no airline would be able to get away with the fraudulent practice of overbooking. (Let's not blame corporations -- so long as lobbying politicians gets results, someone is going to do it. The invisible hand works even for services we'd rather didn't exist.)

      But what can you expect? Airline travelers are not the brightest bulbs in the hallway. The fact that they not only put up with but demand that the needless TSA stay in place proves that they are idiots. I'd much rather ride a Greyhound bus than a plane, so long as the so-called market is like that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Fish 7 years ago
      I don't see any problem with overbooking as long as there is a free exchange with the passengers who volunteer to get off of the flight. In this case the big mistake was to force someone on a trade that was not agreed upon. So yes, free market, even for the compensations, is the right approach.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
      "I think that “overbooking” by airlines would be much less widespread if there were a true free market in air travel."
      Yes. I also think some vendor screwups are a part of life no mater what.

      To me the bigger issue is our police departments are not good at diffusing conflict and doing things like removing people from other's people's property without beating them. It's easy for me to say and a lot to ask of police officers, but I think we should ask it. Police officers acting like combatants in a war with citizens has gotten out of hand. It seems like our attitude is in the short-run it's safer for police officers to move in armored vehicles than to walk around and get to know people. Ideally the gov't structures would create laws the reflect citizens' needs, so police would have an army of law-abiding people everywhere who want to help them stop/solve crimes. We're so far from that. This environment is what caused the police to physical beat the guy on the plane.

      The police probably could have diffused the situation with no force by talking the guy down, maybe saying they see why he feels wronged, but they own the plane, so they can kick people off for bad reasons if they want. They could have offered to help him get to the customer service people and complain. They could have asked if any other passengers would reconsider since this guy says he really needs to travel. Instead it's the war mentality. We're at war against drugs and guns and whatever, and if we really mean it then that means US citizens are the enemy in an armed conflict.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years ago
        How about not needing them in the first place? Chicken and egg situation here...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
          "not needing them"
          What's them? I missing your meaning.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years ago
            Not needing the cops in the first place. Had the cops not been called to remove the guy it would not have happened. Had they not had a fully booked flight, it would not have happened. Had they not had a system in place that uses overbooking, it would not have happened. Had they had a workable plan that would allow them to move crew where needed that did not depend on passengers being removed it would not have happened. The police were their fallback position, for when the peasants object to being told whatever United wanted. The police should never be used to enforce company policy, rather to remove passengers who might be a danger to their selfs or others, period. United created this mess with arrogance, no customer concern, and really bad management.Also, even though they own the plane, they enter into a contract, that contract has all kinds of provisions for things BEFORE you board the plane, not after. In fact there is a Federal regulation that requires written notification of the passenger as to why they are being removed and what options are available, mainly to be used for nasty people (drunks, buffoons, etc). They did not do that http://either.It is not the cops jobs to go on a plane and try to negotiate with passengers to get what the company wants, that's why they have gate agents. United did not have the management skills to ask itself: What if someone doesn't want 1000.00 to get off?, and have a plan to deal with it gracefully (like the guy who ran Jet Blue said, " You tell them to bid it up until you get a taker". They could have sent the 4 people to an air taxi service, a plane rental, have an agreement with a company to borrow a jet, or anyone of a dozen options.
            As far as cops go, yes, they have become aggressive in the last few years, especially after you had an administration that basically justified any criminal act and then blamed the cops for trying to do their job. There also are people who are cops who should not be doing it. Police departments are controlled and administered by the same useless government cronies that run the rest of our broken civilization, so it is not a shock that they do some of the cringeworthy things they do. Had the airport cops been given a decent ROE such as "You go on for drunks, druggies, criminals. Other than that, stay off planes" this would not have happened. Again poor management and failure to do simple "what if" problem solving.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
              "Not needing the cops in the first place."
              That's obvious to me. I agree it's a horrible way to run a business. I think it's their plane, though, and they can kick people off if they want to.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years ago
                Well, you did ask... but we will just have to disagree on the plane point, I do agree they own it, but I also believe they then "rent" it out and have a contractual obligation to fulfill.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      Exactly the sort of point a guy made in an Op Ed in the LA Times. He illustrated his points by using the European system as an example where they have many airlines, some barely surviving, but lots of competition, little regulation, yet they are safe, have low fares and many choices.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years ago
        Amazing that no one has commandeered and flown any of their planes into buildings in Europe either, especially given all the other alleged terrorist attacks in Europe.
        More reasons to suspect the federal government's tale explaining 9/11.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years ago
          Well, they did make some international changes post 9/11 including locking cockpit doors, so it is a little harder to execute. However, there is nothing saying you could not charter a smaller plane, load it up with explosives, and pretend you were Japanese and in WW2. The fact we have not seen that does make doubting the whole story more valid. The whole pre-9/11 thing has so many holes in it that have never been addressed, beyond "You're just a conspiracy theorist (snide voice)"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
      "Unfortunately “capitalism” is taking another PR hit. "
      I disagree wholeheartedly with the American Magazine piece. I understand why you avoid the word capitalism, but I won't. It's a fact of the universe that resources and our time alive to use them and enjoy them are limited. There has to be some decision making process as to how scarce resources are used. Capitalism gives people the freedom to enjoy their wealth now or put it to use building something that may create more wealth in the future. I don't see how that relates to the United issue. People have finite time to build airplanes, operate them, and extra fuel to power them. It takes human work to provide transportation or any service. You can have the king's experts, backed by whips and guns, figure out how much everyone should work, consume, and invest in future production; or people can control their lives and everything make.

      Under any system, there's always scarcity. People rightly want more trips, free time, etc, but someone has to do the work. This fact of life is why the Christian Bible opens with a myth explaining why unlimited food doesn't crop up without human effort. The myth says it's because just as children grow and rebel against the benevolent dictatorship of their parents, it's in humankind's nature not to want to remain children and have everything handed to them. My only point in repeating a myth is to show scarcity has been a key issue for humanity since antiquity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years ago
        I think the terms are required to be used together. There can be no capitalism without a freemarket, and that is exactly what caused the issue here. Airlines are so secure in the regulated empire (and despite the myth of "deregulation, which only effected fares) they know there is no competition and it is virtually impossible to start any. Richard Branson had to reduce his holdings of Virgin to get it to be allowed to fly into the US because of regulation "no individual can hold more than 25% of an airlines stock". How is that free market or capitalism? The airline industry is regulation at it's worse,along with most of our transportation infrastructure.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
          "How is that free market or capitalism?"
          I am not saying airlines are run by pure capitalism. I just won't give up the word capitalism because of the PR hit due to things like that American Magazine article mischaracterizing it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years ago
            Well, I would not necessarily say you should, simply that a freemarket with minimal regulation is necessary for capitalism to function correctly. Even then,I also believe there is a need for some balance in regulations and laws to put some basic controls in place so that you do not have people who will put money over lives, such as plane safety, and traffic control. I do agree that that article does mischaracterize it, in the usual "My socialism is perfect and would never do this, but your capitalism always does" way.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
              Yes. It's the common argument: "If the gov't weren't involved you might have a problem with [insert any problem that gov't can't fix or makes worse]."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years ago
                There is just a need for some regulation when you mix airplanes, cars and trains, along with other powerful things, and the problem is where the line is,
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
                  "problem is where the line is,"
                  I think of regulation as being for cases where lawsuits are constantly coming up. Say loud sounds carrying onto a neighbor's property reduce its value. We could document this in court by comparing two groups of similar properties, one in noisy locations and another in quiet locations. Every time there is a noise issue, the person who lost value due to noise, could take the person making the noise to court. But it would be simpler to set a regulation.

                  These potential-lawsuit issues come up more common in densely populated areas, so those areas need more regulation. People in urban areas want more regulation and therefore wrongly come off to rural people as collectivists. People in rural regions want less regulation and wrongly come off to urban people as wanting to get away with trashing their neighbor's stuff.

                  If I worked in policy, I might learn that my view is simplistic, but based on my current understanding I want regulations that obviate the time-consuming process of litigating issues like the noise-pollution example.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 7 years ago
                    Oh, CG, do not think lawsuits work the way TV has them. We did a lawsuit and I will never do another, as what was a clear case of right and wrong became a mush because a good 50% of the evidence we had could not be submitted as it involved state reports and letters, which, unless you had the writer come in and testify they wrote it, could not be admitted. Your comparison idea would never make it in the door, unless you hired a certified person to make a careful study and had the opposition present at all times. It plain ass sucks.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years ago
                      "do not think lawsuits work the way TV has them"
                      My point is that regulation's purpose should be to prevent lawsuits.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 7 years ago
                        Not as they use them, notice whenever a regulation is used, the group regulated almost invariably files one, finds a judge sympathetic, and gets it overturned? It is a systemic issue, regulations are useless without a strong clean legal system to support them.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years ago
    as a retired American pilot...the way it was from 1979 to 2008 was that the airplane was not mine (the Captain) until the door was closed..it belonged to the gate agent outside...any requests were made thru him/her...the agent made the final decision...

    with that said, I requested the removal of passengers a number of times while at the gate with the door open...and forcibly removed....by sheriff's deputies...I filled out paperwork for 90 days and that was the end of it for me as the Captain...no cell phone videos back then, but there was plenty of cursing, kicking, and screaming by unruly passengers...

    ...and there was no limit to the amount of money used to "buy" oversolds off the airplane (and everyone who volunteered at the opening offer got the final offer, i.e....$100 first offer....$2,000 final offer...everyone got the $2,000 offer...and if you pressed, you got a check for cash rather than the voucher for future travel that was publicly offered...

    bottom line...there are some people you do not want to be trapped in a silver tube for 6-10 hours with...if they cannot be happy in the tube...they need to go somewhere else to be happy...most of these individuals got three hots and a cot (24 hours in the slammer)...

    flight attendants used to be able to tell passenger to behave or the Captain was going to come back and "talk" to them....can't do that now in the post-9/11 environment...could be plot to capture Captain and take over airplane...what a joy...we became prisoners in our own airplane...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      Good points mia, they do push the gate agent thing, as the gate agent then hands the boatload of people to the plane captain. They are responsible for ensuring all the correct passengers are onboard, so they define "correct".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years ago
    The last time I flew United I had a connection to another United flight in Dallas. my flight was late and I missed the connection. I go to the United counter and found that they couldn't care less (with a smille). I had to drag out of them what to do, how to do it and then I was grudgingly given a flight two hours later. My 12th grade orchestra conductor had a better attitude (See "Whiplash").
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      Corporate America always seems to bring out the best in it's employees, especially in customer "service" (or lack of).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 7 years ago
        If, like me, you're not a frequent flyer, it's very easy to panic in an unfamiliar situation.In movies, there never seems to be a problem with another flight or of mishandled luggage but the airport is alien territory for most of us and unless we get pleasant reassurance it is easy enough to panic.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years ago
          One would think the airlines would understand that, but they seem to be missing the point. Not surprising considering how bad all the rest of society treats people...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 7 years ago
            I know that people have heard this from us old fogeys until most are tired of it. There was so much more civility when I was a kid. Most people seemed to think it was a good thing to help others, and to reassure them. Now, things are more United Airlines than Mr. Rogers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo