United Airlines Flight

Yeah, likely tailored to business and government travelers and maybe a few leisure travelers (like in the 60's). Seats would be bigger with more legroom.

 

Perhaps, but I doubt the aircraft would be anywhere near as advanced as they were in '60s.

 

I assume you know the history of airplanes. Industry was intially subsidized by mail service until passenger service took over with larger, more comfortable planes. Also, you had military support of development, particularly during WWI and WWII. The other government support stuff like airports and such not as important. If you want to assume what happens in a world without militaries or mail service, go ahead but it falls outside the realm of possibility in my opinion.

 

You're right, and I wouldn't want to live without mail service or the military. However, the point is that the airline industry has benefited enormously from colossal amounts of government money, which makes it somewhat ironic when people in the airline industry complain about the government. It's like a lemonade stand owner complaining about it being hot outside.

 

Deez,

What's surprising of me about your statement on this ... master of the obvious. You ususually have a deeper understanding and offering of a given topic.

You know what ... the appliance industry has benefitted from government R/D, too ... the list is endless. We have obtained a lot, if not a majority, from the R/D the government has funded through Defense and Space ... what's been DONE with that technology is not the government's perview simply because it existed when it did from government operations (proper or otherwise)

CLEARLY this is NOT my reference ... the issue is the level of government interference in a private business. Yes, the operations should be regulated because the environment is public airspace, but if the industry is really going to be deregulated, the business practices should as well ... as well as labor relations, btw.

Government wrongfully got involved and created the DOT rule when there was an inexcusable "tarmac" delay in Austin Texas. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. So, here comes government to save the day ...

Result --- companies are MUCH quicker to simply cancel their contribution to the GDP so as to avoid this massive fine for an arbitrary number. The results are STILL realized every spring. So, did government regulation help or hurt the traveling public's ability to slip the surlies and get where they want/pay to go faster than we've ever been able to accommodate?

That aviation technology advanced in design and construction directly because of our war fighting requirements ... that many of our airline pilots were trained to use those new machines ... is irrelvant to the point about BUSINESS regulation.

Thanks

 

The point is that we're not talking about a very private business. We're talking about a business that is very, very much in the sack with the government and has been almost since Day 1 and overwhelmingly to the industry's benefit. I don't have a problem with a business taking technology funded by government to serve a public goal (like national security) and then using it to serve the consumer market. That's a good thing - both for the consumers and for the government (and is almost like knowing the winning lottery numbers 24 hours in advance for the companies involved). However, the more you rely on the government's dime, the less room you have to complain about the government regulating your activities.

You can argue that some of those regulations are bad on the merits as you have. However, that's a separate issue from whether the government has the right to regulate you in the first place. If the airline industry doesn't want the government to regulate its activities, it would get a lot more sympathy from me if it would build its own airports and pay for its own R&D.

 

If you think I've argued the entirety of the model should be deregulated, then I've either failed to convey my thoughts or you've misinterpreted ... or both.

This thread speaks to the customer relations aspect, not the infrastructure, not the airspace, not the appropriate aircraft for the operation, not the source of the certificated/trained personnel required to operate ... and we have a recent example of government regulating that part of this sector. It's NOT been a good thing for anyone but government.

So ... this is why I've cautioned those crying for rule changes with regard to the BUSINESS ... be careful of that for which you ask. The last example has been bad for the companies, the employees, and especially the customers.

Do you object to this point?

 

My head is spinning. The actual Federal Aviation regulations are easier to interpret lol.

 

when presented with the need for their removal ... per the Conditions of Carriage policy which was agreed at the point of reservation???[/QUOTE]"Perhaps we should all take notice and pay better attention to that of which we are agreeing in a transaction, eh?"

I read the Conditions of Carriage and I do not think that the airline had the right to remove the passenger UNDER THE CONTRACT. No amount of sophistry is going to save the airline's *** on this one. "Boarding" of the aircraft is analogous to delivery, or beginning performance in other types of contracts. Once boarding has occurred, the Conditions of Carriage recognize that the passenger has vested rights - those contractual rights were violated. I understand that the airlines and their employees view things differently, and posit a "captain of the ship" type standard of absolute discretion by the crew. I suspect that if this case goes to trial, you are about to learn that you and your airline employee cohorts are wrong about that. The usual airline friendly caps on recovery for getting bumped (denied boarding) should not apply, and traditional contract damages (and any tort damages) should apply (as Deez's off the cuff intuition noted). Of course some judge, perhaps one who was appointed as a "strict constructionist," may well liberally construe the term "denied boarding" in favor of the airline because, well, business is business after all. That would limit damages to the $1,350 cap.
All that said, United could still remove the passenger, even in breach of their contract. It wouldn't be under the Conditions of Carriage -it would be in breach of them. A ticket is a license,not a lease, and a license is revocable, with or without a contract, subject to a claim for damages (as United is fixin' to learn). See generally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach . For that reason, United could have him removed, and the real question is going to be whether the force used was excessive. I know from previous high profile police cases, and comments on this thread, that Hornfans is peopled by hard-asses, and the prevailing view is that whatever a cop does to someone who resists "he deserved what he got." I think a jury of more typical Americans will see it differently, if the expected hefty settlement is not forthcoming, that is.

Also, I suspect that you know by now that the characterization of the passenger's "re-boarding" that you read in some blog was incorrect. Horninshicago's instant acceptance of what you honestly noted was "unconfirmed blogging" is hysterical, as is his smirking, knee jerk criticism of "the 'news.'" But again, this is Hornfans. I am used to that.

 

Uh ..... seriously?

 

Hello "sniper" ... seems an appropriate handle ...

So ... you SUSPECT ...

I didn't read it in a blog, I learned of the TWO reboardings from a friend who was in the terminal, at the next gate. I don't control what the media reports, but they certainly DO. What's their desire? Ratings?

There IS a video of Dao at the back of the aircraft clinging to the curtain mumbling "just kill me" ... this was before the airport (not airline) enforcement arrived.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15349/new-footage-showing-moments-man-was-dragged-chase-stephens

I just looked at this again and the clip of Dao clinging to the curtain at the back of the jet has been removed ... it's out there somewhere.

Look ... I think I stated this before, but it apparently needs to be restated; the folks charged with the dispatch of the flight and those who work for those folks do not start their work day looking to make life miserable for any given or group or all member(s) of the traveling public.

I don't have ill will toward Dao nor his family and in fact wish for them the very best. But there is a basic misunderstanding about this situation and there's becoming a closed ear to any attempt to expound the knowledge of what is really happening ... and the considerations necessary to provide that safe, comfortable and reliable ... not to mention speedy ... transport to which we've all become accustomed.

The rest of your post about Conditions of Carriage is noted. You're not "boarded" until the entry door is closed and the aircraft moves for purposes of flight. Until that happens, you are "boardING" ... if you want to parse words.

Snipe-on

 

I don't understand the question.

After all of this discussion, is there still insufficient understanding there ARE indeed circumstances where removal is proper and just???

No need to kiss the ring ... but do not press to test. We all want you to get where you are going, but behavior needs to be proper.

 

Am I alone thinking that username is questionable?

 

No.

 

I wasn't clear.

The first post of mine you reference WAS in a blog post I read and was seeking collaboration.

The second post was of a witness: friend of a friend; both intimately familiar with airline operations.

Sorry for the confusion.

AFA boarding ... it doesn't really matter.

Just to muddy the water more ... I read another Shapiro-linked article which says those employees WERENT flight crew. IDK if that's legit or not, but "must fly" to operate another flight is "must fly"

 

Yeah I am guessing that is incorrect on the non-crew thing. If that is the case, that puts things in a whole new light.

 

Shark,

Two things you're missing. First, since most airlines cross state lines, there is a legitimate federal role in regulating them. They are as close to being "interstate commerce" under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution as it gets. Accordingly, even if the airlines were a 100 percent free enterprise, Congress would still have every right to regulate them. Second, the more a business interest is dependent on government money, the more that interest invites government regulation, and that regulation can reach everything that business does - safety, customer relations, operations, etc. If you want to be treated like the post office, you'll be regulated like the post office.

Another thing, it's fair to criticize a regulation on the merits, but there are two points that are worth remember. First, regulations aren't adopted in a vacuum. Agencies give the public (including the industry) significant opportunities for input, and in the case industries with billions of dollars, you have agency capture. The airlines are largely writing the rules themselves, which is why many of them are industry-friendly.

Second, when an agency enacts a regulation that isn't industry-friendly, it's usually because somebody within the industry abused the public to such an extent that the industry's colossal power was outweighed by the public's outrage. For example, the tarmac regulation you're whining about happened because an airline kept passengers on the tarmac for nine hours. Sorry. That's never excusable. And I looked at the tarmac regulation. What part of it do you think is so unreasonable or burdensome?

Just out of curiosity, do you really know why passengers hate such delays? It's not because they think delays are per se unreasonable. Most people understand that things happen. It's because they'd rather delay boarding than sit in a hot, stuffy plane without access to food, water, and a toilet for hours at a time, and they don't understand why that happens. I'll ready admit that I don't know the answer. I've been told that airlines do that, because they can count a departure as "on time" if it leaves the gate on time. I have no idea if that's true, but that's what I've been told.

 

No sir, I'm not missing them at all. As I mentioned in the post you quoted ... there IS a necessary function in the regulation of the airlines due to the public airspace which is obviously utilized, the Air Traffic Control which is (right now) government controlled ... and as you state, the interstate portion of the business.

Being interstate doesn't mean every facet of the business should rightfully have a regulation to it.

The airlines DIDN'T write the tarmac rule. I've already highlighted the problem with it ... the burden is that rather accept the fact we'll be on the airplane for as long as 180 minutes before takeoff ... we're not going at all. Interestingly enough, it's the traffic management (government controlled) which contributes to most of the delays resulting from legitimate weather delays. Airlines don't control that but have to deal with it. If you'll read again, I stipulated the event which motivated this new legislation was an absolute abortion and I was embarrassed by it. I would have put that aircraft between jets on their gates and escorted the passengers across the ramp and up one of the jetbridges before having sat at that spot for 8 hours. I'd have used airport police to help in that "crowd control" for escort on the ramp into the terminal. I'm sorry this happened not only to that 150ish bunch, but the rest of us because now we have this problem of significant delays resulting in preemptive cancellations.

The market says we GOTTA have a flight between city pairs every 90 minutes/less (though no one really wants to pay for that convenience of frequency) ... when the weather shuts us down ... rather than have 50 flights to unwind ... we have 250. When that forecast delay exceeds approximately 120 minutes ... CANCEL. This doesn't help the airline. Doesn't help the crews. Doesn't help the customer.

yes ... there is a (management) push, double entendre, to dispatch on schedule at all costs. (particularly those carriers who's senior management has based their bonuses on departing per schedule) Most of us who control the brakes and throttles of the aircraft understand the difference between desire and need. To the max extent possible, we will delay boarding to minimize the time spent sitting on the airplane. We usually can't "absorb" the full delay (again, caused/increased by government apparatus) on the gate because there'll be an inbound for that gate, but I will ALWAYS put my passengers comfort second only to their safety. I believe most of us will take as much of the delay on the gate and off the jet the vast majority of the occasions. However, I cannot discount the impact of a delay to the rest of the system, either.

It's good to have that authority.

Much to the dismay of the colorful comedians/etc ... we really don't approach going to work as an opportunity to make life difficult for the traveling public. But people are not very smart, sometimes. The customer is NOT always right. I had to exercise authority I didn't WANT to exercise just last night when one of my passengers made a foolish decision. I won't divulge the circumstances here, but the 3-day trip went without a hitch until the last flight. in fact ... my decisions over the 6-leg/3-day trip accommodated more passengers than was originally allowed. Did I mention it's good to have that authority? It's also necessary.

Follow the instructions and there is no problem. It's not a power trip. You're part of a group and the group has to be led in a single direction. Oh, and ... don't lie about/deny your actions which were in violation. I was sad for this passenger, but I did what I had to do ... there were more considerations than simply that passenger's particular act. Few know that ... and that's OK, just accept that the Captain isn't your enemy and truly seeks to provide the safest, most comfortable, and on-time operation he can ... every time.

Thanks.

 

There is another issue with this passenger video. It is easy to show one passenger engaged in dubious actions being tossed off a plane, but it is difficult to show thousands and thousands of passengers who travel by air everyday with absolutely no problems whatsoever.

Just as it is easy to show one individual that suffered ill effects from receiving medicine to immunize them against a particular disease, but difficult to show the benefit to thousands or even millions of people who received the same immunization without ill effects. DDT was outlawed because of a sensationalized fictional story, and falsified research on the thickness of bird eggshells, and millions of people you never saw or heard about died from malaria as a result. The EPA's ban of DDT makes the EPA Administrator at the time of the ban, William Ruckelshaus, the greatest mass murderer in the history of the world.

The point is that it is easy for the media or anyone with an i-phone to show the harm to an individual, but difficult and less dramatic to show the benefit of "rules", or certain "products" to millions of people. The airline industry can easily solve the overbooking problem. They can just charge an non-refundable fare to every passenger that makes a reservation and sell only the exact number of seats on the plane. If they do this, there will be no refunds if you cancel your reservation, and no more social misfits disobeying law enforcement, running on and off of a plane and delaying all of the other passengers on the plane, and chanting like a schizo while holding the plane's divider curtains like a security blanket. The airlines can, and already have, increased the amount they can offer passengers that surrender their seat on overbooked flights. Regardless, it will be the rest of the flying public that pays the price for the unstable actions of one "man" that decided he didn't need to follow the agreed upon rules for flying.

 

Jacked it outta the park!

Well done, iatrogenic!

 

Not only can they regulate interstate commerce, they can regulate anything that happens on property that's funded with federal money, which is going to include pretty every major airport in the United States. I'm not saying they SHOULD regulate everything, but you're on thin ice if you think they don't have the right to. They absolutely do.

And if you'll read again, I didn't say the airlines wrote the tarmac rule. They didn't, but that's a rare exception. It exists because someone in the industry decided to treat its customers like garbage rather rather than use common sense. That's the kind of thing that invites regulation.

Also, the rule doesn't say you can't go at all. The industry may be applying it that way, but it doesn't say that.

Finally, you're talking about the rule as though a 3 hour tarmac delay is some minor thing that a customer should just accept as reasonable. It isn't. It's ridiculous, and customers are justified in being pissed off when it happens especially when it happens without a meaningful explanation. Personally, I'm not a big complainer and can handle a lengthy tarmac delay, but I'm a 40 year old man in decent health. It's easy for me to be low maintenance. Tell an 80 year old heart patient he has to sit in hot, stuffy conditions for 3 years. Tell a pregnant woman she has to hold her bladder for 3 hours. That's downright torture for them.

There are idiotic customers, but most of them don't think they're always right and understand that delays are sometimes unavoidable. However, the comedians' jokes are funny for the same reason stereotypes about various groups arise. There's truth to them, which makes them resonate. Everybody has dealt with rude and/or dismissive flight attendants. Everybody has sat on a tarmac in a humid, 85-degree cabin and thought, "why didn't they just wait to board us?" Like most industries that are in the sack with the government (and like government agencies themselves), it's just not a very customer-centric industry, especially when compared to other industries that aren't as deeply in the sack with government.

Frankly, just being nice would go a long way. It doesn't look good when you can drop $6 in a Chick-Fil-A, and a 19-year old chick will treat you like family, but if you drop $1,500.00 to American Airlines, there's a good chance that you'll get dismissed by a gaggle of bitter but entitled old ladies and whiny gay dudes.

 

You're probably right.

I wish you were in charge Deez. Everything would be just fine.

 

@ShAArk92 , did you ever get clarification on that blog saying Dao had voluntarily gotten off then boarded again w/o authorization?

 

Thanks ShAArk. I would appreciate you forwarding the ticket upgrade to me that you promised.

 

I haven't doubted that. But I haven't seen it written in the "approved" narrative sources (ny times, LA times, NBC, et al)

Pretty sure my friend wouldn't string one on this and he assures me his eyewitness friend wouldn't either.

I haven't seen where the "employees" weren't flight crew deadheading other than one blog ... credibility of that blog unknown to me.

 

I'm discussing this on an aviation board. So, he DID accept the voucher initially, then just upped and changed his mind?

 

That's chickenshit. I don't expect to be in charge. But I will give you credit for something. You and others like you have built an industry in which you can be indifferent to what the customer thinks or whether he or she is treated with common courtesy and respect and still make money - again, sorta like the Post Office. That takes some creativity.

 

Your backhanded compliment notwithstanding (or underscored), you've repeatedly demonstrated a resistance to learn from folks who might know a bit more about this than you do.

But like I said ... you're probably right.

 

Not so. My mind is very much open to what someone in the industry has to say, and I fully admit that I speak only from the perspective of a passenger. However, you're more talking around my points and issues than addressing them, and when pressed, you're dismissive.