Good perspective in the WP comments:
"The truly shocking thing here is that violence - with the real possibility of serious injury - was viewed as appropriate in a situation that was purely logistical. The airline wanted seats for its own employees. This was not an emergency - such as a terrorist attack or a drunk passenger endangering people. The lack of judgment is stunning. There is no way that violence was justified."
You can't put a man into debt unless you have the capacity for violence to enforce it. He doesn't pay you back, you break his legs, or take his sons and daughters as slaves. Today we have reduced the violence. Now companies ruin credit, get a Sheriff to evict someone from a house foreclosure, harass you with phone calls .. it's a less violence but it's still a form of it.
This violence is also the origin of money (and debt). A conqueror takes a country. That leader needs to pay his army (they are expensive). So you take the area you took and they can only pay taxes with coins; your coins specifically. Only soldiers have those coins, so you leave a garrison that gets paid from the debt you put the people in.
Before the US destroyed Libya, it had the highest GDP in Africa and no debt to the WMF. Today, the "rebels" the US imported are now in debt to the WMF and the people no longer have free electricity or education.
Any kind of property requires violence to exist. If I say "this is my land" and you disagree, the only way I can enforce my claim is through violence. Debt is just a specific case of a general phenomenon. (This applies to communal property, too.)
> Before the US destroyed Libya, it had the highest GDP in Africa
Do you have a source for this? I see Libya's GDP circa 2005 at $41 billion (in 2005 U.S. dollars) [1]. South Africa's 2005 GDP was $260 billion in current U.S. dollars [2] (bit over $200 billion in 2005 U.S. dollars [3]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-stat...
The debt motive for the invasion makes little sense. American banks made more money on Ghadaffi's Libya [2].
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/business/dealbook/libyan-...
You borrow £20 from your friends, if you don't pay there is moaning but not usually more. You borrow £100k for a mortgage and don't pay and they may change the locks and put someone else in your house but don't usually hit you.
The United violence has nothing to do with debt.
In "original" societies it is not abnormal for 50% of males to die violent deads. In our societies it is less than 2% as far as i remember. Including two world wars!
So the violence of debt is not that relevant in the big picture.
This is an internal business matter for a private company, and United had several alternatives.
United didn't have to overbook the flight in the first place.
United could have accommodated their additional crew on a competing airline or private plane.
United could have offered more compensation to volunteers to leave the flight.
There is absolutely no reason for a taxpayer-funded police force to intervene in this private matter. The passenger violated no laws.
I will point out that it is not United that "chose" violence. They asked the police to intervene. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on physical force, so they did.
Now, for the police, violence has always been normal, or normalized.
Consider the appropriate responses:
1. An airline should not call in the police when dealing with customers because they can reasonably expect violence.
2. The police should be retrained not to use violence. (Is this reasonable? You can imagine other instances where this where this would endanger them.)
3. As a society, we should not let police deal with "civil" situations where violence might occur. Perhaps we need another "force"?
And so on.
edit: clarity of last point
That is absolutely reasonable. In many countries, police are trained to de-escalate potentially hostile situations. Only in the US and probably a couple of police states are police officers required to escalate to violence.
And it's that tendency to escalate to violence that makes police a threat to society.
It's not that simple. The police in the US are trained to de-escalate situations too. That doesn't stop police violence from occurring either in the US or elsewhere (there is no shortage of horrific stories of police abuse from western/central Europe as well, for example).
Sure, but practically speaking if you have a realistic understanding of how most US police forces operate, you know that involving them in any kind of dispute greatly increases the chance of violence and harm for all involved. YMMV per locality and situation, but it's a pretty sensible rule of thumb that police involvement equals increased risk of violence, even in previously nonviolent conflicts.
Which is sad and unnecessary. I think it directly results from the prevalence of "warrior mentality" in US police training and operations. They are trained to view all citizens as potential enemy combatants to be dominated, rather than innocents to be protected; they are trained to put the safety of themselves and other officers above the safety of the citizenry; and they are trained to, if not always escalate, certainly to err on the side of escalation if there is any hint of violent action or ill intent from the citizens they interact with.
Obviously not the case here, but in general, when anyone could realistically be carrying a gun, I don't think the current situation is a big surprise.
This is kinda the point of OP, police violence has become so common-place that we take it as normal happenstance when it's used. There's an air of expected guilt for anyone on the receiving side of the violence but no doubt whatsoever on whether the violence was necessary in the first place.
Even being fired for cause just means getting the same job in the next town over.
Are you sure? I've never heard of it. I have heard of a police officer who was fired for de-escalating a situation through his training as a marine.
Maybe some police department do train their officers to de-escalate, but it's very clear that many don't. In fact, many US police officers are overly eager to de-escalate.
> That doesn't stop police violence from occurring either in the US or elsewhere (there is no shortage of horrific stories of police abuse from western/central Europe as well, for example).
Compared to the US, there is absolutely a shortage of stories about police abuse in western/central Europe. Yes, it happens, but not on that scale, and the kind of police violence that Americans have come to accept as normal is not considered acceptable in most of Europe.
Wonder why. Because it's not newsworthy.
The biggest difference is most of the time when an officer abuses the public in the EU they are fired and criminally charged
In the US they are given a 3-5 day paid vacation while the police union and the dept find away to cover up the event, and the insurance company for the dept strong arms the victim into taking a no fault settlement that rarely even covers the medical costs for the victim
“In the US, police training lasts on average 19 weeks,” she writes, while “in much of Europe that would be unthinkable. In Germany, for example, police train for at least 130 weeks - http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7709638
The objection here is that violence wasn't sufficiently gated, and nor was violence minimally applied -- the airline could've just paid people to get off with a real offer, and not a dishonest offer where people suspect they're going to get tricked by funny coupons and vouchers.
Surely the flight attendants politely asked the man to leave, and when he refused they called their manager who did the same, and only at that stage did they call the police, who also probably asked the man to leave first, before finally resorting to dragging him out.
At the end of the day, the plane is owned by United, and they have every right to uninvite him from their property, at which point he is trespassing, and it becomes a police matter. Sure, they might violate their own ToS on their tickets at that point, but that's a purely civil matter.
Maybe, maybe not. Airlines are heavily subsidized by the US government in exchange for regulation so they will offer service to rural areas which might not otherwise be viable to run an airline into our out of. There are also laws and regulations which turn disobedience of airline personnel into a federal offense in particular situations.
Whether these, combined with this passenger's situation, turns this from a civil to a federal matter is something I'd leave for the lawyers.
You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent.
Much more useful would be deescalation and mediation, but that is not the training given to US police.
It seems like large portions of the police force in the US and the perception of it has degenerated to be some brutish muscle. It's concerning how much that is accepted.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or implied threat, to be deployed to resolve this situation.
It's true that police can use mechanisms other than force or explicit threat, but so can United without involving the police. The only reason to involve the police is because they are violence, at least in the form of implied threat of force.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence
United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force.
One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this.
I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point.
In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?
I hate to sound like an old guy but I do remember when police used to try to resolve issues. Much like many police interactions I've witnessed in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Police used to try to get everyone to calm down and figure out a solution that did not involve the need to get violent or anyone going to jail.
For instance, in this case, the police could have asked the doctor why he didn't want to deplane. With that knowledge they could have approached the United crew and informed them that this was a doctor who had to be at work tomorrow and imply that getting their four staff to another location seemed to be less important, so maybe they could find another passenger or find another solution.
If United persisted, the police should have gone back to the doctor and said, "Listen, we're on your side. They're being a-holes. But, it's their plane and they're asking you to leave which means you're trespassing and failing to follow the orders of a flight crew. We don't not want to arrest you or have to remove you by force, but we're boxed in a corner here. Just come with us and we'll help you file a complaint."
Yes, there's a fairly wide belief in this, including by many leaders in law enforcement; that is, that American police have been trained in a means which over-encourages use of force, and that this should be changed (in some places, the work has begun an implementing such a change.)
A key write-up of this is: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
EDIT: also:
> I will point out that it is not United that "chose" violence. They asked the police to intervene.
Asking the police to intervene because the state has a monopoly on violence, so they are free to use it in ways you are not, is choosing violence, even if the police might also veto that choice. So the issue is exactly that United chose violence.
It definitely should not have been requested of them, but it's possible laws were broken.
This passenger violated no laws but the CPD willingly intervened as an agent of the corporation.
Guys with guns weren't required. United could have offered more compensation to volunteers or accommodated their crew on competing airlines.
In related news, we learn that Barclay's "received assistance from a US law enforcement agency" to unmask a whistleblower.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/10/whistleblowin...
Law enforcement have become lackeys of corporations, when their job should be to protect ordinary people from these abuses.
I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be too difficult to place charges of some sort on him. Not complying with police orders might be one, trespass might be another.
I've never heard of trespass being used in this situation.
Since he appeared to be reasonably passive, I suspect it would be difficult to charge him with anything.
An aviation attorney commented about this and seemed to suggest it's very gray: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...
In the end, this is going to cost United a TON. United could have flown a plane with only those 4 employees on it for way less than the hit they are about to take.
Of course very few people will defend the airline's actions here, but while saying you won't ever fly United again is easy, is competition really strong enough among (in this case) US domestic airlines to enforce that boycott?
I am guessing most people will simply opt for United if their flights are the most convenient for them, and leave the boycotting to someone else.
I suspect not just because talk is cheap, but also because we have come to accept the current state of affairs surround air travel. From the moment you step into an airport until you depart at your destination, you submit. You'll docilely submit to standing in a queue being treated as a potential terrorist to the point of being shouted at if you don't comply fast enough or simply don't understand what is required of you, and (for most of us who can't afford first or business class) you'll submit to being treated as a third rate citizen. Flying means keeping your head down and submitting until you regain your sovereignty at your point of destination.
Flying sucks, and we grudgingly accept it in lieu of alternatives, or because we actually believe that this treatment is necessary for our safety. Next week people will have mostly forgotten about this incident and will fly United without a second thought if the need arises.
However, I am curious. Once they made the decision to remove him. How could they have done so if he didn't want to move? A taser?
Even on a plane full of game theorists, willing to bid up to a million dollars, you're still probably miles away from the amount this will cost in negative PR, to say the least.
Plus, I am not a lawyer, but I think IDB means just that -- boarding. Once you board the airline cannot change its mind, not for commercial reasons (although it might be able to weasel out of that by getting everyone off and re-boarding without some people). Again, take with a grain of salt; this is just what I heard.
Lots of things were legally allowed established practices until they were not; people realized they were unethical and immoral, hopefully people will begin to realize this practice is also unethical and work to abolish legal overselling
But overbooking is almost certainly right. Look, fact is that some pax won't show up for their reservation. Without overbooking, planes would fly emptier, wasting money and damaging the environment.
The airlines have fairly good predictions in most cases, and people have different preferences, so that almost always in the small number of cases where there is not enough space you can get people to get bumped voluntarily. It's really a win-win.
Sure, you can try to go to the courts to get monetary compensation for that, but you can't force them to provide the service.
In future one might consider, "how likely are they to violently drag me off a plane?"
The public has pretty well demonstrated that they prefer lower-price tickets over a higher-quality flying experience. So the airlines are giving the public what (the majority of) the public wants - a crappy, but cheap, experience.
That's the source of the brand damage here: many people (rightly or not) will be wondering whether the same thing might happen to them if they fly United, and decide it's not worth the risk.
Sure, the flight would be delayed, perhaps significantly, but the impact of that would pale in comparison to this horrendous PR controversy.
Section 25 doesn't apply, they were not denied boarding. And I don't see anything in section 21 they've violated either. Their forced removal seems to be the airline violating their own contract, not the passenger.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
Then there's not much to fear, because I don't see anyone at all finding this normal. It's on every news site and social network, everyone is deeply disturbed about these events.
If anything this clearly shows that violence is FAR from normal in peoples' mind.
I'm on the doctor's side, United should not overbook a plane and bump a customer to get their own people on board, but when someone refuses to leave what other options do you have? Taze him and drag him off? You'll have to use force to remove someone.
Ok, we're offering $10,000 to anyone who gets off.
I see twenty hands and we only need four.
How about $8,000, ok, down to 19 hands.
10 minutes later, and they probably would have ended up paying LESS than $800/seat.
DOT, Air passenger "Bill of Rights"
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo...
> If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).
What else can you do?! Am I right?!
How do you feel? It is dark, rainy and tomorrow at 8 you have a job interview in the city.
You better pack up nicely and quickly, because I'll call the cops otherwise.
Let me know if you feel like you'd understand the situation.
In the free market, you offer enough money until someone decides that the offer is good enough. Everybody has a price.
In a fascist place, you call the thugs to punch an asian doctor unconscious, so that he can be dragged away from his (paid) seat, so that employees can take their (free) seats
Pay another airline to ship your employees. This is nothing but horrible planning on United's part. Worst case: Google Maps says a 5-hour drive separates Chicago from Louisville.
1. continue escalating their shitty voucher bribes : sooner or later someone's gonna bite
2. arrange alternate air transport for the crew : they're already in an airport, and 2 of their competitors (American, Southwest) have multiple direct flights between Chicago and Louisville each day
3. arrange ground transport : otherwise known as renting a car and driving. Not super fun, but I've had ironically had United pull that shit on me from NYC to DC - i.e. they cancelled a flight and put us on an overnight coach bus. If it's good enough for customers, it's good enough for the crew.
4. suck it up and delay whatever flight that crew was scheduled for. It sucks, but it was their mistake to overbook and this isn't a safety-critical situation.
Bottom line, there are about 951 different ways to tackle this problem and they chose the absolutely worst one out of the bunch. That kind of stupidity is legitimately impressive to behold.
Isn't there a good chance this happened anyway? I heard the plane was grounded for 2 hours.
They should not get into this situation. At ALL. They should, like they normally do, handle overbooking at the boarding stage -- by either offering compensation or by issuing IDB checks to people they choose to prevent from boarding.
What happened is major mistake and is morally despicable. I hope the passenger gets punitive damages.
Our society is less violent today than even recent history and continued reductions are more likely than not.
Which I don't mean we shouldn't be concerned about unnecessary use of force, I mean that it requires very careful measurement to say that violence is being normalized (Rather than rejected).