United passenger forcibly removed from flight after refusing to give up seat

[TargeT]

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
But my own final conclusions is an indictment against everyone involved at every level of how this all unfolded and this includes the Dr. and this includes that ranting lady and this includes all the other passengers who were in some way aware this was going in an obviously bad direction.

I'd say there was a good fair share of escalation participation all around, however; once one-sided-violence is used the scale (for me) tilts heavily against the perpetrator.

Up until the point of violence, I agree the guy was probably being an asshole (things like this don't happen out of nowhere).

Taking a violent approach is being lazy and impatient (any parent should know this), forcibly removing this individual caused a 3 hour delay (probably longer all said and done) I am fairly confident I could get someone out of their seat with 3 hours to work on the individual and "the crowd" and with zero physical contact (probably a lot less than 3 hours).

My lines aren't drawn in sand, but scarred in steel. Violence should be not be tolerated except in defense of ones life.

[Chester]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
But my own final conclusions is an indictment against everyone involved at every level of how this all unfolded and this includes the Dr. and this includes that ranting lady and this includes all the other passengers who were in some way aware this was going in an obviously bad direction.

I'd say there was a good fair share of escalation participation all around, however; once one-sided-violence is used the scale (for me) tilts heavily against the perpetrator.

Up until the point of violence, I agree the guy was probably being an asshole (things like this don't happen out of nowhere).

Taking a violent approach is being lazy and impatient (any parent should know this), forcibly removing this individual caused a 3 hour delay (probably longer all said and done) I am fairly confident I could get someone out of their seat with 3 hours to work on the individual and "the crowd" and with zero physical contact (probably a lot less than 3 hours).

My lines aren't drawn in sand, but scarred in steel. Violence should be not be tolerated except in defense of ones life.

My personal operation protocol agrees with this.

I do wish to point out the following... sharing embarrassing personal experience.

My wife, Cristina, and I have been together 15 years. Only twice have we had a confrontation where what can be called violence occurred. In both cases, Cristina went off on me. In both cases, my mouth pushed her unfairly to these actions. I say unfairly because I realize that each individual has their own breaking point. When a drunk, verbally abusive asshole, like I was both of these times, pushes the one so far that they respond as Cristina did (the first time she slapped me... somewhere around 2005 and the other time in 2010 when I did the same and she waited until we entered the elevator where she went "feline" on me knowing I could not escape for the 30 floor trip!)

It was soon after that I stopped alcohol altogether. I apologized not just with words, but actions. We have never had such an encounter since. She deserved better and I somehow got the message and did better. I also harmed her in another way... she felt terrible afterwards about her reaction. That it was my fault gave her no solace, even when I apologized. She felt terrible for some time after each event. Fortunately as a testament to her own character, she no longer harbors any feelings about it. Perhaps true apologies are actually only true when actions show the apologies were meant and lasting changes were made.

So when I look at that event, I would not be surprised that one or more of those police (who looked in the videos to have not properly executed the forced removal and perhaps were not in the physical shape to try) feels bad for how it went down. This is not to say they don't regret (if any one of them do) their actions for fear or reprisals... but each one may also be capable of regretting it as a matter of their better character.

In this case too... the Dr. has responsibility - all and only my opinion. Yes... I am wishing for a perfect world. And note I did emphasize the Dr. appears to have a slam dunk case.

[Bob]

Sam, I have a differing opinion - I don't see this issue as "overbooking". I see it as, the plane was not "over-sold", it was fully seated by paying passengers, legally there.

Below is how I see it and will try to emphasize the points, one by one. My feeling is the Jury will look similarly, when it is clarified the subtleties of over-booking verses kicking out fully legally seated passengers.. (below I will try to emphasize with Caps and/or underlining instead of "color emphasis" on what I believe are the key points so as to try to save some extended dialog/words otherwise that would be needed. As-is the post will be long..) Bear with me as I share my thoughts, understandings and observations.

It was United Airlines wanted their 4 employees to have free travel, at the expense of PAID legally seated passengers. They tried to use the over-booking rules which technically I believe would NOT apply in this case. The legality is that anyone can be tossed off a plane if the Captain says so. If the door is closed one set of rules applies, if the door is open another set of rules applies as far as federal verses local statutes.

The criminality is the physical abuse the passenger suffered. The grey area is that it was NOT over-booking. There were seats for ALL paying passengers I believe.

The lack of judgement was to try to use bump policy (over-booking claims) to get 4 United Employees to "fly for free", instead of putting them on a competitors airline and pay the couple hundred dollars per employee. That is the lack of management judgement I believe.

The lack of compassion for a doctor "legally fully paid and seated passenger"with patients in the morning is a failure completely of all the staff involved. That they tried to use the "bump policy" is scandalous in my opinion to create 4 free seats (non-paying) for their Employees who fly for "free" (no charge to the employees).

The stupidity resulted in United Airlines stock falling hundreds of millions - massive losses.

The stupidity resulted in MANY FLIERS saying to United Airlines, we will NEVER EVER fly on your airline. Massive stupid judgement call by all the ticketing/checkin crew, the on-board crew, any supervisors or managers involved, the Captain for allowing such a stupid travesty, the cops for using brutality on the legally seated and paid passenger..

It was therefore not "overbooking".. It was United wanting to try to get it's employees on board a FULL plane at the expense of some paid passengers. United staff then used manipulation and bullying tactics to force 4 people off the plane, mis-labeling what they were doing as "over-booking". Some gave in, not knowing, that it was not overbooking, but it was a United company decision to try to manipulate 4 people, to bribe them, with eventually the bribes costing "more" than simply moving the 4 employees to another airline's plane and paying full fare for those employees and get on with things safely and tactfully..

The Doctor getting back on the plane it would seem later was his choice because he did not accept the counter-offer, and he stood his personal rights despite the abuse - there was no indication that he was "arrested".

The quasi-grey area is the definition of being a "belligerent passenger" who could risk the safety of the other passengers if and when the "door closed" (another set of rules situation) and the plane took off. This is where the Doctor is seeking the testimony of all the other passengers and the logs, the recordings.. United and the cops would say "belligerent" to attempt to justify their case, the Doctor will no doubt prove by other passenger testimony the Doctor was not of any harm to all, but was himself massively harmed. This I believe is why United is trying to BRIBE ALL the passengers with no doubt a maneuver that will say, see, the passengers ACCEPTED the (read bribe) gift from United and thereby stand by the Airline instead of the Doctor. This is action is what I see as underhanded.

My best guess is, the cops and the flight attendants, INTIMIDATED the Doctor into reacting when he had probably replied that he was legally seated, paid, and needed to get to his patients in the morning.. At that point instead of seeking anyone else, the elderly Doctor (69) was bullied, pushed, and harmed so that he screamed out in pain. (to give United so-called "justification" for booting). In other words, manipulation of the person to get them to react out was used.

It would be a logical business move, in my opinion, put the 4 free flying employees on another airline, at cost.. save a LOT of hassles and dollars that way.

United could have booked their "free flying employees" on any of the other airlines out there, and none of this fiasco would have happened, "this time".. But with a management policy as it is with United Airlines, it would have no doubt happened again somewhere.

==update==

As far as jump seats, it is possible that the stewards/stewardess' already are using them (they are not comfortable seats that passengers have). I haven't studied the crew compliment, but I do agree that United could have put their free flying employees on some other form of transport, such as another airline instead of trying to convince a fully seated plane with legally seated passengers that they were "over-booked". They were not over-booked, they wanted their employees to fly but did NOT tell the people on the plane at the gate that there would be 4 free flying employees who would take their paid for seats. Chances are the doctor would NOT have gotten on the plane if he was selected by "random" (ah hum...)..

Having been a "pilot in command" of an aircraft before, I understand the buck stops with the Captain on the plane.

For instance, first hand experience: My son has been and is "pilot in command" (I tend to feel he has a lot of common sense) and flies for an airline commercially. He's saved a commercial jet plane from crashing in St. Louis a few years ago due to an in-flight massive equipment failure, saving the passengers and himself. He would have never ever allowed a situation to potentially harm a passenger for "company profits". Something that is a concern with all pilots who fly commercially is an unruly passenger potentially risking all the souls on the plane while in-flight. A belligerent passenger is a danger to themselves and crew and plane and the other passengers. If the plane crashes the danger to those on the ground as well if the passenger caused sufficient damage. It is worrisome when something goes from norm to "out of the norm".

Thank God my son has no desire to "Fly United" for that airline. ("Fly United" is one of their buzz word expressions for that company as is "fly the Friendly Skies of United"..)

I would say many pilots are compassionate, and sincere and would have made the correct decision to get a supervisor on the plane, possibly a really good psychologically qualified "specialist" who can negotiate in a tense situation and compassionately look at all viewpoints ..

Some corporate policies could very well be in need of massive over-haul.

[RunningDeer]

United Airlines Throws Engaged Couple Off Plane

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BYQRA-WedeQ

Published on Apr 17, 2017

A bride and groom headed to Costa Rica for their wedding got kicked off their United flight out of Houston Saturday afternoon, reports CBS Houston affiliate KHOU-TV.

This, in the wake of United coming under intense fire for the contentious removal of a doctor from a plane in Chicago last week, which was caught on video that went viral.

The latest incident took place on United Airlines Flight 1737. The couple, along with friends, were flying from Salt Lake City and had a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

Michael Hohl, the groom, told KHOU he and his fiancé, Amber Maxwell, were the last to board the plane.

According to Hohl, they noticed a man was spread across their row napping when they approached their seats, 24 B and C.

Not wanting to wake the man, Hohl said, they decided to sit a three rows up, in seats 21 B and C. He said they didn’t think it would matter because the flight was half full with multiple empty rows.

“We thought ‘not a big deal,’ it’s not like we are trying to jump up into a first-class seat,” said Hohl. “We were simply in an economy row a few rows above our economy seat.”
In a Boeing 737-800 like the one the couple was on, United considers Row 21 “economy plus,” an upgrade.

After sitting, Hohl said a flight attendant approached and asked if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple tells KHOU they explained they weren’t and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead were told they needed to return to their assigned seats.

Hohl said after complying with the flight attendant’s demand, a U.S. Marshall came onto the plane and asked them to get off.

Hohl said they cooperated and got off the plane without incident, but they still don’t understand why.

“They said that we were being disorderly and a hazard to the rest of the flight, to the safety of the other customers,” said Hohl.

United has a different version of what happened. The carrier issued a statement Saturday saying, “These passengers repeatedly attempted to sit in upgraded seating which they did not purchase and they would not follow crew instructions to return to their assigned seats.”

The Reuters news agency reports that the airline, in a statement issued Sunday, denied that a marshal or any other authorities were involved, saying simply, “They were asked to leave the plane by our staff and complied.”

The bride and groom were rebooked for another flight the next morning, but Hohl said they won’t be flying United again and described the whole situation as “quite strange.”

“I think customer service and the airlines has gone real downhill,” said Hohl. “The way United Airlines handled this was really absurb.”

Despite their flight delay, their wedding is still planned for Thursday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-k...ng-off-flight/

*****

VERIFY: Can United kick you off a flight for sitting in an unassigned seat?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wmWivkBYA-Q

Published on Apr 16, 2017

A bride and groom headed to Costa Rica for their wedding got kicked off their United flight out of Houston. So, we wanted to verify if in fact United Airlines can kick you off a flight for sitting in a seat other than the one you were assigned?

[Atlas]

Trump supporter removed from United flight in China

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-IZFCm5flI4