United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
cnn.com
cnn.com
The point about the deadheading crew is more interesting IMO. It's their arrival that triggered the whole thing. Why were they so late arriving? Did United's logistics screw up by not putting that crew on another flight, or did the crew themselves screw up by not showing up for it? United still hasn't clarified. It is perhaps worthy of note that the deadheaders were the only ones here who were United's responsibility; the rest (and worst) of what happened was on either Republic or Chicago aviation security. United might be faced with a choice between admitting their own direct responsibility for causing this mess vs. having to explain to AFA why they threw union members under the bus. Silence might seem preferable to either of those.
Looks like United's fault to me. On a side note, I'll never understand wanting to side with a corporation on a matter like this.
The offending party (in the court of law) might be the security officers. But as a passenger, Dr. Dao bought the ticket from United and it was their responsibility to treat him with dignity and safely transport him to his final destination. The situation arose due to lapse in United's protocols -- which was probably enforced by Chicago Airport Security officials.
I could make another argument, for the security officers, that they were just following protocols. Maybe the gate agents let the security know that the passenger isn't leaving even after "politely" requesting him to. The security officers, hence rightfully, assumed he was a threat to other passengers and used force.
All of this comes down to the fact that United started this, and they could have easily avoided the whole thing.
The flight was not oversold. There were 70 seats, 70 passengers, and 70 tickets. It was only the four deadheaders who put capacity over the limit.
The fact that there is an "authorized limit" is squarely on United. Start offering cash money to give up your seat, rather that near-worthless vouchers, as they are authorized and supposed to per FAA regs, and eventually, I guaran-freaking-tee you will find takers.
60% United, 40% hired security goons. United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place
Yep. And that actually yet further shifts the blame towards United even from your split. If you call in security goons, you can't get mad when they act like security goons. Just because United didn't bust the guy's lip doesn't mean they couldn't reasonably foresee that happening once they picked up their telephone to call in security.
Nothing in this distinguishes the facts as we know them so far, and doesn't even mention the changes in legality incurred once a paying passenger sits in their purchased seat. For me, the contract of carriage is an important aspect of this story. Heck, I don't even think I've read anything that implicates the pilots on the Dao flight at all.
It reads more as submarine PR to take the heat off the airline and square it on the police, who essentially have zero oversight in Chicago, and which would put the matter into a territory of blamelessness. Further extrapolating, in the inevitable civil case(s), I wonder if the pilot's reasoning could work to reduce punitive damages.
That's just pathetic, as a consumer, if you buy a ticket from United. The thing is between you and the United, no matter how United manage their business, it's completely irrelevant for the consumer.
If we buy a poisoned food, I have no interest in finding who's responsibility it is, I go directly to the person who sells it. It's falls on the United to file lawsuit etc to determine their messy relationships and responsibilities.
Consumers don't need to know that, the case for contract. Period
The crew should absolutely have exhibited some agency and basic human dignity and intervened to prevented airport security for de-boarding a passenger who had already been seated. It would have saved everyone tons of time and their company a ton of horrible PR.
Actually no, it was Republic who did that. United definitely screwed up, but not in that particular way.
As a passenger, I am not there to solve a problem for the airline. Their failure to have a crew somewhere else is not my problem to solve.
1) That United could have him removed to begin with. Call this the social issue.
2) That he was removed violently. Call this the physical issue.
It's because these things are combined that we get the outrage we're feeling now.
Police interact violently with people all the time. Often it gets overlooked because they were doing something wrong to cause it.
People also get removed from flights all the time, but usually it gets ignored because we can't see their frustration as easily as we could see blood on Mr. Dao's face.
United is absolutely responsible for the social issue, but I don't agree that they're responsible for the physical one. The police should have explored other options that didn't involve violence in order to get him off of the plane.
At the point Mr. Dao was at, he was essentially trespassing on United's plane (not something I agree should be the case, but the way that I understand the policies of the airlines' governing body, that is the way it is looked at once they decide he should leave).
probably an article by the united PR department.
> But this whole nightmare occurred because a "deadheading"...
> But let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Chicago airport security officers.
Way to scapegoat airport security, Les. Next time just blame the victim outright.
I'm sure Dao deserved it because he was perpetrating a sit-in protest without a permit on private property. Right?
"Empty seats cost the airlines money, and they need to recoup those losses somehow."
What does this mean? The issue here is overbooked seats. If a seat is physically empty during the flight because the passenger just doesn't show up, the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket/seat is still (pre)paid for. Overbooking is simply a way for the airlines to make extra money on top of what they would normally make, gambling on some percentage of customers not showing up for the flight.
So, is the airline industry operating on such a slim margin that giving up the practice of overbooking would force airlines to take noticeably drastic cost-cutting measures?
Your logic is perfectly reasonable and sound, and it took me many years of working for Big Corp (TM) to understand that is simply not how a big corporation thinks.
Once they have a revenue stream, anything that diminishes it is a "loss", even if that revenue stream was kind of fake or invented anyway.
The massive company I worked for was making millions per week from something that was accidental and they shouldn't have been. But it went on for so long, they got so attached to it (those millions looked great on year-end reports) that soon any talk of "fixing" the problem was referred to as a "revenue loss" and it was completely unacceptable to the business, unless your proposed change kept the revenue.
The particular incident isn't really a good one to base discussions on, it was so egregious that the discussions are boring. It shouldn't have happened.
There is a more interesting discussion to have about overbooking, whether to allow it and how to deal with the situation where they get it wrong and don't have enough seats. Maybe the minimum payout for denied boarding should be higher. Maybe the airline should have to start their offers for voluntarily taking a later flight at that price. Maybe the sale process for all tickets should include an option to actually reserve the seat (for a fee).
But there isn't a discussion to have about whether a business should call the police to beat up a customer that they just don't want to serve.
We're talking about how companies view the loss of "extra money" as a loss of revenue, when in fact they are already perfectly well making all the revenue they were before they invented the "extra money".
Air travel is fantastically expensive and we all want it to be cheaper than it really is. This is one of the ways that is done (people who don't show up pay for other people and displaced passengers move to underfilled flights).
The practice is annoying, but I think with the exception of bungled reqccomodation is a net plus for the consumer.
The insidious part of it is that on more complex itineraries, the regional jet segments are priced rather low. I've flown from Montreal to Dallas-Fort Worth to Tokyo multiple times on American Airlines, and each time the ticket shows the cost of the business class YUL-DFW segment to be $232. If I was IDB'd from that segment (which also wouldn't happen to business class passengers without some major extenuating circumstances), all I would be legally required to be paid would be $232 * 4 = $928. I've seen economy fares on regional jet flights on complex itineraries of about $50, so the legal requirement to deny boarding to that passenger would be $200 cash.