Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

NYDN: Passenger Dragged off of Overbooked United Airlines Plane

RonArtest15

By RonArtest15
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Zazzaro703

Zazzaro703

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

He did fall, watching the video, the security officer was pulling him up and out of the seat and he fell over and hit his face on the chair across the isle.

Yes, but it was phrased at first that he fell on his own. I'm not taking either side here because I wasn't in the situation. I just don't like cover your ass lying. You do agree when purchasing the ticket that you can be removed from the flight if the crew wants to, but there is also some grey area there. I think both parties are at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

He was playing the limp game, non-compliance.

 

My cuz is flying today, at 7ft and 300+ I'd love to see them drag him out. :)

not sure how he even fits.

1 minute ago, Zazzaro703 said:

Yes, but it was phrased at first that he fell on his own.. 

 

Gravity is at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

"Consumer protections", in this case you're suggesting that United grant this passenger rights that no other passenger is afforded. And the force was determined by the airport security, not the airline.

Yes, the flight was full. Was every seat allocated to a paying passenger? No, was the flight full? Yes.

 

No, I'm saying that this helps bring to light the lack of consumer protections and what BS the lack of protection is in favor of the airlines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Repeat after me, "The customer is not always right."

 

Talking about missing the point. BTW, the airlines is responsible for the use of force as they allowed this situation to occur in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, DM72 said:

 

Oh, Mr Tough guy. Lol

 

"you're"

 

 

Yeah, "you're," but also

 

19 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

The Dr. knew exactly what he was doing and he got the exact result he was looking for after accepting the $800 freebie and then renigging on the voucher.

 

"Reneging."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yeah no they aren't. The airport provides the security.

Ok dude. If you don't think United was responsible, that's fine and you can continue to miss the big picture here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Acceptable word but, for god's sake, watch your spelling when you use it...

Incorrect!

I recall about 15 years ago a guy who was working for the DC government as a budget analyst used it when explaining a dept. of ed. budget and got very loudly and publicly fired.. which was upheld even AFTER it was explained what it meant.

 

Ignorance in the extreme. But given the level vocabulary and general usage of English grammar has fallen it was not terribly surprising.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RonArtest15

RonArtest15

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You're confusing overbooked with over-sold. In the end it doesn't matter.

 

It actually kinda does...if your reason for booting Dao was due to saying the flight was "overbooked," then that better be what the situation was.  Which it turns out, it wasn't the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Ok dude. If you don't think United was responsible, that's fine and you can continue to miss the big picture here. 

I've already said that United was responsible because they never should have let more people on the plane than they could transport.

That is where they screwed up;

Step 1: take total number of seats on the plane subtract by the number of crew needed to transport.

Step 2: only allow the resulting number of passengers onto the plane, the rest never get past the agent at the gate.

 

You obviously want United to be responsible for the injuries the man received in his forcible removal from the airplane, but you have not demonstrated how United caused those injuries. They followed protocol in calling security to remove the passenger. From that point on security was in charge, security laid their hands on him, the injuries occurred at that point.

 

I know it's fun to blame the big greedy corporation, but sometimes they just aren't the ones at fault for what you want to blame them for. There are certain facts that are pertenent to this incident:

1) the plane was over-booked and someone was going to be staying behind.

2) the airline was prioritizing the transportation of their flight crew over the passenger.

3) the passenger thought he was fighting for a right that he did not actually have.

4) the flight crew called for security to remove a non-compliant passenger

5) an injury occurred during that removal.

 

There were mistakes made:

1) United should have stopped the passengers from boarding who were going to be bumped.

2) The man should not have resisted with security became involved and attempted to remove him from the flight.

1 minute ago, RonArtest15 said:

 

It actually kinda does...if your reason for booting Dao was due to saying the flight was "overbooked," then that better be what the situation was.  Which it turns out, it wasn't the case. 

It absolutely WAS the case...there were not empty seats. There were more bodies on the flight than the aircraft could legally transport...i.e. over-booked. You are STILL confusing over-booked with the flight having empty seats which there were none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MassSkinsFan

MassSkinsFan

Posted
Posted
On 4/11/2017 at 0:21 PM, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I highly doubt the people were selected at random by a computer like United said. Id guess it was randomly selected from a group of ppl that had no frequent flyer/business memberships and bottom 20% of ticket prices. 

 

No way United is allowing frequent flyers to be treated this way. 

 

They needed four people. Reports I've read said the Dr. was with his wife and two kids - four people. I think that may have been why they were selected (four seats booked through one transaction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I've already said that United

 

You obviously want United to be responsible for the injuries the man received

 

 

You are a little all over the place here but I'm not really concerned about any kind of lawsuit. I am about seeing better customer protections and to not see this incident happen again. 

 

One final things for me on this issue: It is this greedy corporations fault because they prioritized correcting their own scheduling screw up over their customers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOF44

HOF44

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

3) the passenger thought he was fighting for a right that he did not actually have.

 

While this is correct I'll be damned if it aint wrong!  You pay for a flight in advance there needs to be a seat for you.  If laws exist that make this not happen they need to be changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, HOF44 said:

While this is correct I'll be damned if it aint wrong!  You pay for a flight in advance there needs to be a seat for you.  If laws exist that make this not happen they need to be changed. 

I can understand in some situations, but "we need the seats for our employees because we ****ed up our scheduling" should absolutely NOT be one of them.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...