United airlines

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...bacle-but-for-a-reason-some-might-not-expect/

Here’s the thing. It’s easy to forget that we have no right to fly. Buying a ticket doesn’t change that.

i can't stand right-wing mentalities. it's way more obnoxious than the extreme left. you buy a ticket but you don't have a right to fly. lmao.

conservatives are top-down asslickers.

While Rowe noted that “the policies that led to this particular fiasco need to change,” he emphasized that “what matters most to me is a heightened respect for the rules, and a heightened respect for the people who enforce them.” Otherwise, Rowe said there’s potential for “anarchy.”

“And I have no interest in flying with anyone who doesn’t follow orders,” he said. “Do you? Does anyone?”

i wouldn't want to fly next to such a candy ass licker.

how the hell does anything change if you follow rules that you don't agree with? Has anything changed in history because people went along with it or because they bucked the system or resisted or didn't 'follow' or 'comply'?

what's so disingenuous and fake about all this line of reasoning of 'oh yes, i agree united shouldn't have done this or that BUT he should have followed orders' is no one would know or even be talking about airline policy or what they 'should or shouldn't' have done if he just went along. now we know what they would do, so if that's what they would do, why are these hypocrites faking sympathy when they are essentially condoning what they did.

they are saying, if he had just followed orders then he wouldn't have been injured or forcibly removed. the fake sympathy before the 'blow' is just a way to get people to agree with the policy as if it's reasonable. aka 'he brought it on himself', oh no but we don't agree with the mistreatment etc. yes, they do. they are blaming the victim, especially rowe and it's very clear that he is completely by several of his statements and views. some 'tsk tsk' directed at united is an opening ruse and a typical way to get people to listen to you so you 'seem' impartial, fair and not a 'bad' person etc.

it's so easy to psychologically manipulate the public because most people are stupid.
 
Last edited:
you think people should just do anything police say unquestioningly?
Given they seem to shoot people I would be saying yes sir no sir with my hands on my head.
We get "cop" shows here and I am amazed how ruff your police treat people...only TV but my impression is don't upset them.
One show they threw a J walker on the ground as if he were a terrorist and public enemy number one.
I don't know what are they really like?
Alex
 
Given they seem to shoot people I would be saying yes sir no sir with my hands on my head.
We get "cop" shows here and I am amazed how ruff your police treat people...only TV but my impression is don't upset them.
One show they threw a J walker on the ground as if he were a terrorist and public enemy number one.
I don't know what are they really like?
Alex
Just like that. Sometimes worse. I have a female friend (single mother) that dealt low level drugs - an ounce of weed, a couple of Xanax - cops decided it would be a good idea to do a full on raid - bungie cords, Balaclavas, bust out the windows sort of raid, based on false information indicating high quantities (kilos of coke, etc.). Her child was right there... in the room... when they descended. Oooops...

Nothing to be done. She was in the wrong - a "drug dealer". AKA, a normal person to you and I. With a puppy and house plants, not to mention a child.

Oh well, too bad, so sad...
 
i just find it pathetic how people are predictable. for instance, i was reading mike rowe's opinions on just this airline incident, fragment of a piece of life and i could tell he was a conservative or republican just by his views and opinions on that and sure enough, he is. just reading a few statements and eyebrows go up. it's like they have a certain way of thinking and operating. lmao.
 
You might want to brush up on the facts, so's you can fill in that middle bit.

That is what I am fighting. The one-sided selection of facts, to suit an outraged opinion.
I'm was asking what you meant by "subdued" - you didn't say.

Apparently he wasn't "subdued" when he was sitting quietly minding his own business in his paid-for seat. Then he wasn't "subdued" when he was semiconscious and unable to resist from having his face smashed into the armrest. So it occurred to me to inquire when the word applied - because he doesn't get medical care until after he's "subdued", see, and he's injured - possibly seriously injured.

It seems to me that the next step in rendering him "subdued" would be to knock him unconscious - at which point they could have rendered first aid, at least got the blood under control and checked on the concussion possibility, before dragging him down the aisle of a crowded plane. Do you have another criterion?

The other question you forgot about, there, was the one about your contention that he posed a threat to other passengers. Could you be more specific? We need something to compare with the threat posed by such inept police work, the violence instigated by them, and the blood etc dragged down the aisle, all in a crowded plane.
 
Last edited:
It is sad that this incident monopolises public attention and yet the horrors of the various wars and etc take a back seat.
Alex
Ha yes.

In other news:

Air Canada plane lands at Heathrow without WHEEL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4420436/Air-Canada-plane-lands-Heathrow-without-WHEEL.html

Millions take to social media and headlines on ALL news outlets, expressing outrage. Consumers demand policy change, airline safety a major concern, As consumer confidence erodes, Air Canada lost Billions in stock price following the incident. CEO expected to resign .. ... .... oh wait ...
 
It is lawful, all airlines do it, and the ticket prices we pay are lower because of it. Also, from what I have read, this was not even a case of overbooking. They had to fly 4 pilots to their destinations or risk having to cancel flights which would affect hundreds or potentially thousands of people.
Had they refused this guy boarding due to the plane being overbooked that angle would make a lot more sense.

Overbooking the plane, giving him a seat, then demanding he get out because they screwed up is a whole lot different though.
This combined with sense of entitlement the 1st world masses have today.
If you pay for a ticket and are seated on the airplane, following all the TSA's and airline's rules - then having a sense that you are entitled to that seat makes pretty good sense.

If you pay for food at a grocery store, and are walking to your car with it, do you feel like you are entitled to that food? What if the store sent someone running after you demanding the food back as you were loading it into your car? Would you comply? After all, I am sure there is some clause in their store's policy that the store can deny service to anyone for any reason.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-passenger-removal-watershed-event/100597086/

The airline already offered refunds to passengers on the flight and said police will no longer be called to remove paid, seated passengers from flights, unless for safety or security issues, Munoz said. The airline will also require crews to be onboard flights at least 60 minutes before departure.

Because the incident aboard United Express Flight 3411 was a systemic problem, the company won't fire anyone in management — including Munoz — or its rank-and-file workers.

Dao suffered a concussion, a broken nose and lost two teeth in the incident when Chicago aviation police dragged him off the flight, according to his lawyer Thomas Demetrio.

All this does seem sound. United is taking the responsiblity that it was a 'systemic' problem across various areas and that the firing of some crew would not address the root of the problem. That is true in this situation.

Also, besides their 'apology', they should just settle with him so it doesn't have to go to court.
 
Last edited:
maybe you should watch the video. he was still even buckled in and they still kept pulling because they didn't 'give a shit'.
The injury did not occur while he was in his seat..

the whole situation is he stood up for his rights and united used their policy and police against him. this situation is supposed to make you think about change, not just who or what was done so there would be no lawsuit because of fine print etc. that's lame.
Agree.

ironicly, he did the public a favor as this may spur airlines to review issues such as overbooking, compensation, public and customer relations, what to do with their employees, how to prioritize etc.
Absolutely agree.
 
evidently it is because had he just concurred with the rest, nothing would have been done. so either your statement is naive or you are being as dismissive as united would have been had he complied.
In that case, them's the chances he took.
You can't physically defy the authorities to make a point and expect to come away without some dents.

And he decided he wasn't moving from his seat and so what? you think people should just do anything police say unquestioningly?
Yes.

there are horror stories with that.
Does not warrant anarchy.

it doesn't matter if united 'sicked' the police on him. they were escalating the situation because their policy is dumb from getgo or was past time for a tune-up.

nothing would have happened and no change would be even considered without squeaky wheels or often big crashes and accidents. pfft.
Totally agree.
 
Wow. Really? Without bounds?

* Please step into the oven - keep that line moving... *
Wow, your hyperbole puts birch's to shame :rolleyes:

The police were operating well within the bounds of law enforcement. The same ones that protect the other 200 passengers.

The man was being bumped from an airplane flight fercryin'outloud; he was not having his children ripped from the teat.


Also - Godwin's Law. You automatically lose. :D
 
Wow, your hyperbole puts birch's to shame :rolleyes:

The police were operating well within the bounds of law enforcement. The same ones that protect the other 200 passengers.

The man was being bumped from an airplane flight fercryin'outloud; he was not having his children ripped from the teat.


Also - Godwin's Law. You automatically lose. :D
Calm down... : ) My point was the "obey authority without question" - but, then again, I'm a rebel. So I rebel...
 
Wow. Really? Without bounds?

* Please step into the oven - keep that line moving... *

Offering an extreme is one way of making a point.

If you resist police, and I think their ruff behaviour in any circumstance is unacceptable, it could be remembered they are armed and if you see them practicing at the range they are not aiming to hit the foot or hand so I suspect when their switch is thrown they automatically kill you, nothing personal just doing what they were trained to do.
Perhaps compliance will save your life.
And I would be working with an assumption that the police ruffing me up may be having a bad day and someone may receive that pent up anger via the barrel of their weapon.

Comply and you can talk about your treatment with a lawyer.
Resist and you may never talk again.

Imagine if someone yelled "he has a bomb" , people panic and say stuff, our poor doctor may have been shot.

Stay calm be polite keep living recognise without a lawyer you simply will not win and let them move onto some one else to ruff up.

Fortunately my experience with police has always been positive over here.
I employed a Sargent as a part time salesman when I was in real estate and a finer man you would not meet. From the things he told me about how they are treated by the force it is a wonder any stay on.

Alex
 
Perhaps compliance will save your life.
True. however, not always easy in the heat of the moment. Have you, personally, every been "ruffed up" by a policeman? (No sexism intended by the the "man" part of that word, just never had my head bounced off a car hood by a policewoman)

F*ck them. And the horse they rode in on. I realize that law enforcement is necessary for a civilized society - on a macro scale - and detest LEO on a micro scale. In spite of knowing a couple that almost qualified as actual human beings. Just my opinion...
 
If you pay for a ticket and are seated on the airplane, following all the TSA's and airline's rules - then having a sense that you are entitled to that seat makes pretty good sense.

If you pay for food at a grocery store, and are walking to your car with it, do you feel like you are entitled to that food? What if the store sent someone running after you demanding the food back as you were loading it into your car? Would you comply? After all, I am sure there is some clause in their store's policy that the store can deny service to anyone for any reason.
Except, flying in an airplane is not at all, NOTHING like buying food at the grocery store. The systems and policies required to fly the masses safely and on schedule are infinitely more complex and involves many more people to manage. My point about entitlement refers to people expecting the same customer love and experience from airlines as the have with an i-store or a grocery store. For fuck's sake, (and to quote Louis-CK ) "you are sitting in a chair in the sky!" He makes my point better and funnier than I could:
 
Except, flying in an airplane is not at all, NOTHING like buying food at the grocery store. The systems and policies required to fly the masses safely and on schedule are infinitely more complex and involves many more people to manage.
Given that we spend more money on food safety than we do on airline regulation, I disagree.
For fuck's sake, (and to quote Louis-CK ) "you are sitting in a chair in the sky!"
This guy was sitting in a chair on the GROUND. The plane was not going to crash if it took off with him in the chair. What would have happened is that United would have made a bit less money - and I find it very hard to care much about that.
 
Have you, personally, every been "ruffed up" by a policeman?
No, never ruffed up by anyone, been very lucky been very privileged, but I have heard many credible stories which suggest it happens.
F*ck them. And the horse they rode in on.
I don't like profanity but I love that...
May I change it and use it...
"Well damn them and the horse they rode in on"
Love it.
Just my opinion...
Well damn you and the horse you rode in on.:cool:
My very first brother in law was a cop.
Fantastic bloke, you could hit him in the head with a brick and he would worry something was upsetting you.

I would go for drinks with him and his copper mate and both the most unlikely pair of cops. Maybe keystone cops.

They looked funny and would have made great comedians.


Out of uniform I recon if there was a crime taking place they would have at most made an anonymous call to the station to avoid work.

I grew up often living behind the court house next to the police station and having the Sargent's son as my best mate.
So as I said lucky I only ever saw cops as just ordinary people.

Alex
 
Back
Top