Considering the stupidity of YouTube celebrities and the fact their fans are even dumber, Is say it's pretty much the easiest thing to do in the world.
Yes, there's stupid shit on there. There's also Rogan's show, The Rubin Report, The Drunken Peasants, Sargon, Secular Talk, etc. If you're watching CNN and Fox News you aren't really in a position to judge people for being stupid for watching anything else. I couldn't give less of a shit if the unboxing channels, gaming channels or any of that crap goes away, but there's a few channels that are major time savers as I trust them enough to filter through all the stupid shit in the MSM so I usually don't have to bother.
I subscribe to about 10 channels religiously and watch every video they put out. I'd be pissed if they went away, or would even pay to help a few of them continue.
I had my own run in with United about 12 years ago, and I refused to ever fly with them again. (In fact, Delta actually got involved in that situation and went above and beyond to get me home.) I hate United with the fire of a thousand burning suns. So, yeah, fuck United Airlines. However, that video (or at least the video I saw) was not United, it was airport Police, right? United followed proper procedures, didn't they? Flights are oversold sometimes, and people get bumped. It sucks. But, if you can avoid the bump by simply crossing your arms and staying buckled, how would they ever get anyone off the flight? Everybody on the plane had somewhere to be with plans they weren't willing to change, or they already would've had volunteers.
Or just don't fucking greed and overbook the flight or from what I read put 4 employees on the flight and have to bump paying customers.
Perhaps they shouldn't start boarding the plane until they get their "volunteers" I am of the opinion once you they let you on the plane and give you a seat its your seat. Fuck them for not knowing how to count.
They had four perfectly good volunteers-- their fucking employees who kicked these people off because THEY are more important than actual paying customers. I wish this to hurt United, but it won't. Airlines are hated regardless, and this will be dust in the wind in 48 hours. Overbooking is a sleazy practice regardless, but kicking people off because your shitty airline staff needs a ride? Fuck. You.
Uhh what about the passengers on the future flights the airline staff can't accommodate because this crybaby won't move or acknowledge the fine print for the tickets he bought? What about the passengers on his plain that are delayed, and the future flights rescheduling because of it? Overbooking sucks but is necessary at the thin margins they work on. United, and all carriers, should have a better contingency for these type of cases. I'd say it's a wash and would not have been this big a story if the guy and that lady passenger hadn't shrieked like banshees on film.
So? Why in the fuck does that come up now? As if that makes what United did somehow acceptable? That's scary: when someone can google you, judge that you are a douche and then pull shit like that? The actual fuck?
Maybe I'm weird, but I just don't give a shit about the United Airlines thing. I've had more delays, cancellations, and rescheduling at airports than I can count. Flying sucks. Also, it wasn't even United that did the smack down. It was the police. It's kind of funny reading the "OMFG this could happen to you if you fly United" reactions. Yes, in the 1/(insert millions) of passengers this has happened to it could be you next. At least the media is taking time to breathe between rambling nonsensically about Russia. Baby steps.
Wow, I'm surprised at the level of vitriol here toward United. Full disclosure - I am a loyal Atlanta-based Delta traveler. I've flown United once that I can remember, just last month, and it was a good trip. But no matter what your opinion of the airline itself is, you have to admit that they followed their procedures to the letter. Part of your agreement to fly with almost any airline is that they may bump you for some reason. It sucks sometimes, but that's what you agreed to when you bought the ticket, whether you read the fine print or not. In this case, they had a very valid reason, which is that four of their employees needed to get to Louisville. What's the fallout if they don't go? One entire canceled flight, and maybe more later at another airport. So United had to choose to delay four passengers from one flight in order to allow another entire flight, or more, to operate as scheduled. What would you do - cancel the flight that needed the four employees because of one entitled, over-privileged passenger who didn't want to fulfill the terms of his contract with the airline? Should United have capitulated to his demands and chosen another passenger in his place? How is that fair to the next passenger, and what if all the passengers refuse the same way he did? United did the right thing, they followed the rules, and asked their passengers to do the same. The problem came when one of the passengers chosen, Dr. Dao, became unruly and the airport police got involved. No United employee was involved in dragging the man out of the plane. That was the police enforcing a legal order to remove him. If the other passengers were so upset about what was happening, why didn't they give up their seats so that he could stay? We should note that none of them volunteered to stay behind, so four people had to be chosen at random, or based on pre-determined criteria. Its funny that we haven't heard anything from the other two unnamed passengers who were also removed from the flight. The fourth passenger was Dao's wife. Shame on anybody still blaming United for this incident, especially on this board.
What, why? Should there be no consumer protections in place? Surely the callousness for which was handled is concerning, including the aviation cops essentially acting as an extension of the corporation without actually looking into the situation upon arrival. I understand United had the right to do so under the Right of Carriage agreements, but the airline should have handled this before starting the boarding process like they do for every other flight they overbook when the (n + 1) passenger limit exceeds capacity. And just from an ethical standpoint, the airline should have just kept upping the ante and sweetening the pot instead of escalating to where a passenger gets the shit beat out of him. That being said, the guy is a doctor and was acting like a complete buffoon in his own right. He threw an over the top temper tantrum when he could have bagged the cash, rented a car and driven the what, 4 hours to where the plane was going? That's an afternoon.
Can somebody verify this rumor? I'm at work and can't look it up. A coworker just said it came out that United did handle it before boarding, and the guy snuck on the flight while the crew (I'm guessing the employees people are talking about) came on at the end. I don't have any source, just wondered if anybody else heard/saw that.
There are plenty of consumer protections in place. By law, airlines must compensate passengers that are displaced. If a last-minute situation arises, should United not do what they can to keep their business running? I was on a Delta flight that was almost to the runway in Atlanta that turned around to go back to the gate and pick up an employee who had a part that was needed at the destination. If the flight had been full, someone would have been bumped off, and that would have been a reasonable business decision made under pre-determined and well-defined conditions. Again, United followed the law, they followed their procedures. What were they supposed to do when Dr. Dao became unruly - tell him "it's okay, we'll pick someone else"? The instant someone starts acting that way is the instant he loses his right to any sort of further consideration. Again, two other unrelated passengers were taken off the the flight without incident, in addition to his wife. From an ethical standpoint, United did the right thing by following their procedures, which included asking for volunteers, and then using pre-determined criteria to select passengers to bump involuntarily.
I heard he was booted, taken up the jetway, slipped the security, and ran back on board to his seat before the video started.
Saw an interesting post on Reddit by a lawyer. Not sure if it's at all correct, but it does seem interesting, and would explain why the United CEO is trying to characterize the passenger as being disruptive. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco. My gut feeling is that this is going to cost them a lot of money, both in shitty PR and in legal settlement.
When you go to a restaurant, you do not pre-pay for your meal only to have them tell you "Our employees are hungry, so we're giving them your meals and you have to leave. Come back tomorrow and maybe you'll eat for free, because we feel so bad." The correct response is to give the employees a few bucks to eat around the corner or stick their ass on a bus (paid with overtime) because customers come first-- they do NOT play scapegoat to your fuck-ups.
I don't think that restaurant has you agree to that policy ahead of time as a condition of ordering food, though, do they? What about if the restaurant closes at 2:00 a.m. and you decided you'd rather stay until 3:00 a.m.? Just go limp on the bar stool and have your buddy film the bouncer dragging you out while you scream "You're hurting me! You're hurting me!" Put on a neck collar, too, when you show up to collect your free chicken wings for life.