At that point, it has stopped being between the airline and the passenger, and has escalated to the police and the passenger. The passenger has lost the battle (though he may yet win the war).
The problem is, you can't just let bad policy have the upper hand just because any institution can get away with things legally because of bad policy. situations like this happen and arise because there "is" obviously a problem to address and it's not just going along with protocol. In this case, it isn't about the triviality of the fine print etc and who has legal technicality on their side.
I disagree that it was just the police and passenger at that point as if united was not ultimately responsible from beginning. they are the ones who called police in and this fiasco would not have happened if they had handled it better. for one, they were too greedy to even further up compensation which i'm sure would have elicited some volunteers. it is not as if they were not in the wrong in the first place. they take in billions in revenue every year. United is number one with the highest fees of the airline industry and american airlines is second and they are a larger fleet and not as greedy as united. well, they learned their lesson that a little flexibility and better customer service than just profit margins would go along way and now they lost more than they would have if they would have done the right thing. the real responsiblity does not lie with the police, security and even marginally with the united's staff but more from the top down and how they need to review and modify policy.
why defend a system that may need to be improved. it's like arguing when slavery was legal and if one resisted how they had no right to do so. lmfao.
No. The situation has not been contained at that point; the threat (which is what he has become) to the other passengers remains.
Complete exaggeration and nonsense. he was not any threat to other passengers. he just didn't want to give up his seat because he paid, boarded and needed to get home asap.
again, quibbling over who 'had' legal right to do what is beside the point because laws and policy change when things are not right and to pretend that all the fault and responsiblity should lie with the customer is not right or true.
I'm pretty sure you're going to reject this outright, but that changes nothing. The airline is certainly responsible for getting into this situation, but the passenger had to have known when 'I need to get home' is simply not going to happen in the face of police presence. You don't simply tell police you refuse to accept their authority.
but unfortunately and ironicly, if he hadn't refused, no one would have heard about it and the airlines wouldn't review or care because they wouldn't have to. this is how it often happens, if people are willing to go along with or accept something, nothing changes.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...bacle-but-for-a-reason-some-might-not-expect/
like this type of stupid reasoning. so are we to believe that people can only determine one extreme from another? they can't discern between someone who actually is drunk, threat, stinks, etc? really?
so because he resisted police, now it means that anyone for any reason will have legitimate right to resist any orders from airline staff as well as police?? that's manipulative scaremongering bullshit!
this 'incident' was not only recorded but there were plenty of witnesses and statements as to what happened and why.
if the individual was drunk, threatening others or any number of other inappropriate or illegitimate reasons, this would not result in people being upset with the airline or united having to address such backlash.
Does that mean he deserved a beating? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean he’s innocent. Like the airline, Dr. Dao had options. He had recourse. He could have deplaned and pled his case to the gate agent. But he didn’t. He chose resistance. That was dumb. United chose confrontation. That was dumber. Now, here we are. Dumb and Dumber.
No, this statement is stupid and myopic. if he had just complied and went to the gate agent (okay this is laughable) nothing would have been done seriously where an airline may need to review their policy deeply and seriously. hello, people have been doing this all along and nothing changed because they complied. once you are always sheepish going along with policy, they don't take you seriously.
In this instance, his whole statement is moot and has no point. what recourse? to keep things the way they are? he's an idiot because this situation shook things up and that's how you ruffle enough feathers to effect CHANGE.
