Dr. Dao Dragged Off A Plane Then Dragged Through The Media
There's a lurid Daily Mail story about Dr. Dao, the poor man who was bloodied and dragged off the United flight.
In case you've been in an opium den or trapped under a rock for several days, this went down when United didn't plan for seats for their crew and then was too stingy to offer more money to passengers to take a later flight (to the point where it was worth it for somebody to take their offer).
They then -- thuggishly -- had the man, Dr. Dao, dragged out of his seat on the plane as if he had done something criminal.
As for the stories coming out about him now, the reality is, what he's done in his life is immaterial. He bought that seat, he got to the airport on time, and he got into his seat without incident.
What was done to him was just terrible.
As @AlbertBurneko tweeted:
reminder: we only know who this private person is because a corporation sent goons to beat the fuck out of him for using his flight ticket
— Albert Burneko (@AlbertBurneko) April 11, 2017
via @clairlemon
IMO, United's actions are part of a culture of tyranny that began on the Marxist Left and in weaponized government, and then spread down through institutions and crony-capitalist organizations.
Folks talk about the economic gap between rich & poor, but we ought also to take notice of the expanding power gap between the common citizen and the ruling elite -- including the latter's proxies and henchmen. Asset seizures, SWAT team raids, tax audits, environmental lawfare, extra-Constitutional unaccountable university culture, progressivist thuggery, disenfranchisement through unchecked immigration, vast legalized looting by too-big-to-fail banksters who in turn feed a loop of corruption, disinformation by a Pravda of entertainment/media enablers, and on it goes.
In short, a matrix of power players who believe they can do whatever they want, and no little person can stop them.
So, small wonder United felt little need to give a shilt about anybody except themselves.
Lastango at April 12, 2017 1:11 AM
I don't know who Albert Burneko is but his comment is beyond idiotic.
United did not 'send goons to beat the f8ck' out of him', they sent the police because they wanted him removed from the aircraft and he refused to go. As you would call the police to have somebody removed from your parlour if they refused to go. That's what the police are for.
It was the good doctor who created this situation when he refused to comply. You resist the police, when they're carrying out a lawful duty - that's on you. All he had to do was stand up and leave the aircraft, and he would have found himself at the gate, waiting for a ride, but otherwise unmolested. He chose to resist. He chose - poorly.
I agree that the reporting of his past misdeeds is unfortunate and prejudicial. But, as m'learned friends say, it does 'go to character.'
United has the right to tell you to leave the aircraft, for any reason or no reason, and they don't have to tell you why or negotiate with you. If you refuse to leave, you become a trespasser, and if you refuse to leave once the police show up, you become a criminal trespasser, and if you resist the police when they remove you by force a) you will lose the struggle and b) you just add to the charges.
United did nothing wrong in law, and handled the situation as well as they could. The violence and the resulting bad publicity is all on the passenger. According to news reporting, there are about 100 involuntary denials-of-boarding like this in the US every day, none of which result in this kind of mayhem. It's unfortunate for United that they happened to do it to a functional infant like this.
The only bad acts here were on the part of the police once they got him off the aircraft. Whatever he had done, he was an injured and confused citizen in their custody and they had a duty to get him medical care and ensure his safety. How they lost track of him needs investigation and possible discipline. But the forcible removal from the aircraft? Too bad. They had the duty to do what they did, and the right to do it with as much force as required to get it done. All the violence? That's on him. You don't want the police to use force on you? Then don't resist when they are carrying out a lawful duty.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 3:23 AM
Actually, llamas, I quoted Derek Thompson in another post:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/04/11/united_breaks_p.html
Deny boarding, yes. But remove from a plane? When he's done nothing but sit in his assigned seat without bothering anyone?
And Lastango, I think you're on to something. You've identified something I want to be looking out for with your remark, "...take notice of the expanding power gap between the common citizen and the ruling elite -- including the latter's proxies and henchmen."
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2017 6:35 AM
https://twitter.com/voksul/status/851576950166519808
Southwest's reassurance:
"We beat the competition. Not you."
Bob in Texas at April 12, 2017 6:45 AM
"United did nothing wrong in law, and handled the situation as well as they could. "
Er, I very strongly disagree with the last part. Reasons why:
1. The situation should not have occurred in the first place. A competent airline never wants to bump a paying passenger for a deadheading crew member (for which the airline gets no revenue). Dispatch fucked up.
2. If they knew they were going to have to bump pax for crew, they should have taken care of that situation prior to boarding. No way should a pax ever find out that he's denied boarding after he is already in his seat. By the time you start boarding, that bumped pax should already be back at the bar drinking a beer, with his reward in his pocket. I don't know about United, but my experience on Delta and American is that pax who agree to take a bump get kid-glove treatment from the gate agents and FA's.
3. They didn't try very hard to get someone to take a bump deal. There was a lot more they could have done. They could have increased the reward amount, thrown in perks like a first-class upgrade on the later flight, or even offered to put the pax on another airline. They were already in a bad position because they weren't following their own company procdures and they had already committed two fuck-ups. They didn't need to compound it with a third one.
4. OK, a CEO should stand behind his company's employees, but... The company's statements on the matter have been tone-deaf at best. They should have started with an unabashed apology and then worked from there. If they had, this would be out of the news by now. Instead, the Streisand Effect has kicked in, and social media is keeping the story alive. A lot of people hate airlines these days anyway (there are some good reasons why), and this sort of thing just validates a lot of people's pre-conceived notions, which hurts the entire industry. Airlines are already one of the most regulated industries there is, and it's very easy for the government to turn the screws on the industry in response to a populist uprising.
Cousin Dave at April 12, 2017 6:47 AM
Again, per that link above, the answer to the problem of needing those seats had a free-market solution.
Someone gives up their seat when they are offered enough money that the money means more to them than remaining in their seat and flying.
Instead, United stole from that man. They got police officers to act as their proxy thugs and took away what he'd paid for and complied with all the standards to keep.
He wasn't behaving rudely to other passengers. He hadn't arrived late to the plane. He was sitting in his seat and was chosen for a screwing when he'd done nothing wrong.
And then he tried to stay in his bought-and-paid-for seat by claiming he had patients to see.
Good for him for that.
He tried to solve a problem (caused by United) non-violently, which is more than I can say for the goonish behavior by United as well as the goons they sent to pull him off the plane.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2017 6:49 AM
Cousin Dave, agreed, all points. United botched the handling of this.
Furthermore, there's a good chance that United violated their own contract:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/11/did-united-airlines-violate-its-own-contract-by-forcing-that-passenger-off-the-plane/
It's not a clear sharp line, but a smart lawyer could run with this.
Brad R at April 12, 2017 6:57 AM
Heh.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/262259/
I R A Darth Aggie at April 12, 2017 6:58 AM
Some remarks worth reading by my colleagues at TSA NewsBlog, Lisa Simeone and Deborah Newell, though you'll see from Newell's remark that they are not free marketers like I am.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-overbooked-20170411-story.html
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2017 7:00 AM
Deny boarding, yes. But remove from a plane? When he's done nothing but sit in his assigned seat without bothering anyone?
That's the crux of the issue. United didn't handle this at the gate. They waited until he was on the plane, feet up, luggage stowed, and then demanded that he deplane. When he refused, they called in the aviation cops, as is their prerogative, who manhandled him to the door.
If United had actually denied boarding at the gate, instead of reversing boarding, this would have resulted in 4 unhappy and inconvenienced passengers and no incident.
As for Dr. Dao's past being exposed, well, he made a very public scene and garnered a great deal of public sympathy. Of course people are going to ask, "who is this guy?"
Despite his sordid past, Dao is still the sympathetic character here. He paid for his crimes. He has not been arrested since. At that moment, he was a guy trying to get home in time to go to work on Monday morning. He was allowed to board the plane and was already in the mindset of a guy going home.
United did not manhandle him up the aisle. The Chicago Aviation Security personnel did. United called them in when Dr. Dao refused to vacate his seat and take another flight. His ticket was a contract for a flight between Chicago and Louisville, any flight, not specifically that one. In the contract, it says he can be denied boarding and agrees to take another flight if that happens.
Should he have just gone along with the cops? Sure. But I think Americans are getting tired of heavy-handed officialdom with its bureaucratic rules and Gestapo enforcement.
Does United share in the blame? Yes. United could have handled this better without need to call security. They should have handled it at the gate. Every call for volunteers to give up a seat (or denials of boarding) I've ever experienced on any airline, including United, has been done at the gate where the result is a groaning, unhappy passenger and no security incident.
Perhaps it's the union work rules or the bureaucratic culture or the organization, but United has a history of embarrassing itself with an absurdly rigid adherence to procedures. The corpse of the leggings incident is still warm and the airline goes and does this.
Conan the Grammarian at April 12, 2017 7:33 AM
Not to praise the Canadians, but I am reminded of a story:
When Sitting Bull and the remaining Sioux ran for the northern border and reached Canada, the US Army was in hot pursuit. There were several regiments sent to deal with the Indian problem.
When the Canadian government representative arrived, it was two Mounties. They asked what Sitting Bull's intentions were, and wished him a pleasant day so long as he remained peaceful.
Now, wouldn't you rather have Custer's men plus all the civilians slaughtered at Wounded Knee if a few pleasant conversations would have avoided conflict?
The video looks like it escalated too quickly and the man was not fully in possession of an understanding of what was unfolding. I would be surprised, too, to learn that, once seated on a plane, I could be hauled off the plane. That's news to me.
As one of the men who sat near him has repeated elsewhere - there was no attempt at conversation or diplomacy. There was no attempt at explaining the situation and ensuring Dr. Dao understood the severity of the situation. It went from zero to 10 quickly. One imagines that if they had gone so far as to have cuffed him on the plane, he would have understood he was under arrest. This is what police and police supporters always get wrong - old Bill was a lot better policeman when he had social dominance of a conversation with somebody he was arresting instead of just relying on physical dominance and violence.
El Verde Loco at April 12, 2017 7:42 AM
I'm a lawyer, and I agree with Amy's interpretation of the contract of carriage. (As do all the lawyers I've chatted with this about in the last 24 hours, at least those who bothered to actually look at it.) There is a definite difference between denying boarding and removing a seated passenger. That difference is underscored because another passage in the contract of carriage does enumerate reasons for removing a passenger from a plane -- e.g., bad bahavior. Overbooking or moving airline employees is not one of them.
The brutality was fucking appalling. But even before that, United was wrong. I hope Dao declines the huge settlement they're going to offer him and takes them to court.
Gail at April 12, 2017 8:10 AM
Agree with Cousin Dave and Gail on this.
I'm not sure whether the airline or one of its proxies engaged in a smear campaign against this guy, but it smells that way. Given Oscar Munoz's early characterization of the situation, it would not be surprising if United's initial strategy was to hunker down and try to dig up dirt on the passenger, who Munoz initially said was to blame for the whole thing.
Kevin at April 12, 2017 8:22 AM
@ Gail - well, if you're a lawyer, then you know that the emphasis on 'denying boarding' is misplaced. It's a term of art that's being misapplied.
What United did was decline to carry him on that flight - which is what actually happened. And they have the right to do that, for any reason or no reason. They did not breach their contract to transport him from Chicago to wherever - they just decided to perform it on a different flight than the one he was booked on - which is well-within their rights according to the contract. You know that their contractual obligation is to transport him from point A to point B, but does not oblige them to do it on any particular flight or at any particular time. I'm sure they would have happily re-booked him at the gate, were it not for the fact that he was being hauled away in handcuffs for resisting the police.
@ other commenters, including our generous hostess - All this dramatic guff about how armed goons were sent to steal from him is just that - dramatic guff. Nobody stole anything from him - the worst he would have suffered is a delay in the delivery of the promised service. Happens every day. In this situation, somebody was going to lose, and it turned out to be - him. Sorry.
How should he have played this? Well, if he actually understood the contract he signed when he bought his ticket, he would know that United was not obliged to transport him on that flight, and that when they told him to deplane, he was obliged to do so. Instead, he threw a temper tantrum, claimed special-doctor-snowflake status to try and persuade United to screw up the life of some other, less-important passenger, and then resisted the police when they came to remove him. If he had just got up and left the plane peacefully, United would have rebooked him at the gate and paid his expenses for the delay. As reported in other media, happens about 100 times a day in the US, all those people manage to survive the hell that is being bumped from a flight without behaving like spoiled children to the point where they have to be hauled away by the police. Zero sympathy for this petulant fool.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 8:37 AM
Totally agree with what Cousin Dave said yesterday and today. Many good comments both days from everyone.
New thought? Why in this day and age when all ticket purchases are computerized (I think even if you buy at the airport for cash) are "random" passengers getting kicked off the flight? Seems obvious to me that it should be the last 4 tickets that were purchased. I mean, duh.
Cindy at April 12, 2017 8:55 AM
llamas, you're talking out of your ass.
love, Gail
Gail at April 12, 2017 9:21 AM
If you're in business class and you're feeling fancy...
Crid at April 12, 2017 9:23 AM
By the way, Amy...
Not just "goons." GOVERNMENT goons.
Crid at April 12, 2017 9:24 AM
Did anyone see this?
"How One Woman Made $11,000 Off of Delta Flight Delays"
(OK, so it was all in gift cards, but still...)
http://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/flight-volunteering-compensation
First paragraphs:
One Delta passenger turned a bad experience at New York City's Laguardia Airport into a rare lucrative opportunity this past weekend and made $11,000 off of repeated flight delays.
After storms plagued Delta Air Lines with system-wide delays and cancelations last week, Laura Begley Bloom and her family headed to the airport on Friday for a planned long weekend trip to Fort Lauderdale, hoping that the worst of the disruptions had already passed.
But after many hours and delays, Delta gate agents began asking for volunteers to give up seats on the Blooms’ overbooked flight, which already had 60 standby passengers stranded from cancelations over the previous two days.
At first, Bloom says she ignored the offer, but once an announcement for $900 per seat was made, her husband approached the agent to say that he, his wife, and their 4-year old daughter would be willing to give up their seats for $1,500 a piece. The agent made a counteroffer of $1,350, which is the maximum amount an airline is able to compensate a passenger under U.S. law.
They were also told they would be re-booked on a flight leaving LaGuardia Airport early the next day. So the Blooms went home with $4,050 in gift cards, not bad considering that they’d originally paid $650 for each of the three seats.
But when Bloom went to check-in for their flights online Saturday morning, she saw that their new flight had already been delayed.
“I turned to my husband and said, ‘Cha-ching!,’" Bloom said. By the time they got to the airport, the airline had already started asking for volunteers. Again, they waited as the offers increased from $300… $600…$900…$1,000...and finally, $1,300 per seat, when they jumped and collected another $3,900 in gift cards...
lenona at April 12, 2017 9:33 AM
llamas, your ignorance is showing, Read Rule 21 of the United Contract of Carriage, which specifies the conditions under which a passenger can be removed from a flight -- as *distinct* from the conditions under which a passenger can be denied boarding (Rule 25).
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
tl;dr version: Overbooking, or needing seats for airline personnel, are *not* among the reasons a passenger can be removed.
Brad R at April 12, 2017 9:37 AM
I think the relentless harshing of United Airlines in here is turning clumsy. This is a worthwhile project, and it deserves a bit of grace.
Please go back in time and read the links I posted over the last three days. Okay, just this one and that one.
United is a typically clumsy American business and perhaps an especially cumbersome airline.
This began with a relatively minor logistics failure, and few enterprises make greater demands of logisticians than do airlines.
These stresses were compounding by intrusive government regulations and heavyweight union contracts.
AND THEN you add the brutality of Chicago uniformed constabulary forces. Even at this hour, they claim that the 69-year-old Dr. Dao "fell."
United may well be a reprehensible enterprise viewed whole, but it would surprise me greatly if there were no commenter here (or blog post author) who didn't have their own personal pet peeve baked into this nightmare. (E.g., Look for the Union Label!™)
And we should take a moment to note that this social-media/gossip apocalypse has never intimated, even for a tenth of a second, that any passenger's safety was compromised by the flight of the airplane.
Got that?
A metal tube was hauling dozens and dozens of strangers from the shores of Lake Michigan to the banks of the Ohio with wifi & coffee in under an hour a metal tube filled with human mutual distrust and propelled by fossil fuels, and we're all speaking as if those hazards were incidental.
Crid at April 12, 2017 9:46 AM
Sorry to have missed a word in there, but I was shouting.
Crid at April 12, 2017 9:49 AM
Re Dao's past: I think anyone who writes about it must also write about United's horrible fuckups of the past.
(But they're not germane to this incident!)
Exactly.
Kevin at April 12, 2017 9:59 AM
@ Brad - You are mistaken. I did read the entire contract, including Rule 21, according to my usual policy (never ask a question, to which you do not know the answer).
The answer is right there, in Rule 21, Section H, subsection 2, and/or subsection 4.
You must comply with the instructions of the aircraft crew. End Of Story. If you don't, United can refuse to transport you. And they did.
@ Gail - I wonder which law school you went to, that taught you such nuanced and incisive argument.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 11:01 AM
Lammy, she was BEGGING you to ask that. She was prostrate in prayer that you might so inquire.
Crid at April 12, 2017 11:08 AM
There was the trope on TV shows years ago (remember TV shows? They were very popular!) that an interrogating courtroom attorney should never ask a testifying witness a question for which the attorney doesn't already know the forthcoming response.
IJS, Lammster, you deserve this.
Crid at April 12, 2017 11:16 AM
oh, Ccrid. Yyou wwill rremember that that this is nnot mmy ffault, rright?
I mmean, what's up with this gguy, anyway? And wwhat's up with the "l" kkey on his kkeyboard?
Yyale, Llama. What llaw school did you attend?
Gail at April 12, 2017 11:28 AM
@ Crid - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I deserve - what, exactly?
To your point - it's a trope exactly because that is what aspiring lawyers are taught, whether in law school or in the school of hard knocks. How do I know this? Because when I went to law school - and I did, albeit in another country - this was a fundamental rule of examination, pounded into our young brains on day 1. And it has stayed with me ever since, more than 40 years. Just like Jeopardy - you put the fact in the form of a question, precisely because you already know the answer.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 11:30 AM
@ Gail - the Inns of Court School of Law, in London.
Never ask a question, to which you do not know the answer.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 11:31 AM
That's rich, llamas, given you're the one who originally threw the question at me, not knowing the answer
I am curious -- what is the focus of your legal practice?
Since you will surely ask me the same, I've been practicing for a couple of decades, and have litigated (and won) more cases than I can count that turned on contract language and/or interpretations of statutes. I had dinner last night with a federal judge and a fellow litigator, and we all agreed that United has a big-ass problem here. We had our phones out, reading from the contract of carriage over dessert.
Have you looked at Rule 21, which expressly lists a couple of dozen specific reasons why a passenger may be, specifically, removed from the aircraft, and that does not include overbooking or need to transport airline employees? Any thoughts on why Rule 25 only refers to denying boarding, while a separate rule separate specifically enumerates reasons a passenger can be removed from his seat?
Any thoughts regarding the application of the legal principle that a provision listing in detail numerous specific factors must be read not to include other, different factors that were not listed?
Thought on the legal principle that, even if there is ambiguity, a contract provision is read against the person who drafted it?
Gail at April 12, 2017 12:21 PM
Note that the over-arching reason binding the specific reasons together for removing a passenger are "the safety of such passenger or other passengers or crew". Explain to me how wanting to transport four employees falls under that umbrella.
It doesn't.
If "denial of boarding" was intended to include "removal of passenger", then why are they separately discussed?
This is Contracts 101, llamas.
Gail at April 12, 2017 12:29 PM
While Rule 21 has "including but not limited to" language in Section H. ("Safety"), it is specifically tied to safety reasons ["Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: (19 reasons)"]
Dao doesn't fit any of the factors listed among the excruciating detail of Rule 21.
And if you're going to argue that his thrashing caused a safety issue, I am obligated to point out he didn't engage in thrashing until the brute squad started roughing him up.
Gail at April 12, 2017 12:42 PM
The other reasons listed in Rule 21 aren't even close -- Dao didn't fail to pay, fail to provide travel documents, etc.
Again, why set out different provisions for denying boarding and removal from an aircraft and spell them out in excruciating detail if it all means nothing?
Gail at April 12, 2017 12:46 PM
"New thought? Why in this day and age when all ticket purchases are computerized (I think even if you buy at the airport for cash) are "random" passengers getting kicked off the flight? Seems obvious to me that it should be the last 4 tickets that were purchased."
Ahh, no.
Everybody on board got a ticket with the same conditions on it, even when they cost different amounts.
Radwaste at April 12, 2017 12:52 PM
I think I should defer to the superior expertise of Gail, but I will reply this much to llamas:
Subsection 2 refers to the operation of the aircraft, regulations, and security. It says that the passenger must not interfere with the crew; it does not say that the passenger must obey any demand by any member of the crew. You read it one way, I read it another, and that's how lawyers become rich.
Subsection 4 refers to a disturbance requiring the captain to leave the cockpit. I have not seen any news report that suggests this happened. If you have, please provide a link. And please note that this disturbance must have occurred *before* the passenger can be removed from the plane.
Brad R at April 12, 2017 12:54 PM
So, Gail.
Are you arguing that a passenger may ignore the instructions of the crew?
Radwaste at April 12, 2017 12:56 PM
"You must comply with the instructions of the aircraft crew. End Of Story. If you don't, United can refuse to transport you. And they did."
Reasonable instructions.
They can't tell you to stand on your head and then boot you on the pretext of not complying with their * instructions*
It made a real legal factual difference that this guy was already on the plane. It also makes a huge difference that United violated their own legal proceedure for freeing up seats on the plane.
llamas, you seem to be really caught up in an authoritarian interpertation of quasi government police powers here. Most of which you clearly don't understand when it applies to a situation like this.
United could be the most legally conscious airline in the world, dot every i and cross every t, and if the flying public perceives them as a bunch of jack booted thugs, they are going to hemmorage business to the competition, and they are going to get killed in civil court. Their lawyers are telling them right now to settle, and put this behind them. The optics are terrible.
Isab at April 12, 2017 1:11 PM
You're doing just fine, Brad.
Also -- the word "oversold" in Rule 25 has to mean something. This flight was not oversold. At the eleventh hour, after boarding, United found it more convenient to boot four already seated passengers for its own employees. If the plane had not boarded, this might have worked out for United. But not once it had. That's why passengers always get bumped before they get on the plane.
Words in contracts mean something.
Btw, the section on removing a passenger from the plane can and should be read to include the act of denying boarding before the passenger gets on the plane. But not vice versa.
I need to go into a meeting, followed by a conference call, and then I have dinner plans, so I may not be back tonight. But I will certainly be back to see llamas' response to my points.
Gail at April 12, 2017 1:12 PM
...and yes, Radwaste -- Isab is correct.
Gail at April 12, 2017 1:14 PM
It'd mean a lot to me if one of you would take a moment to say something nasty about the unnecessarily violent Chicago Department of Aviation security forces.
Or maybe about the union regulations which presumably forbade booking transit for the employees on some other airline.
Because things like this...
...Are at least a little bit goofy.I mean, has there ever been a government that wasn't "weaponized"? For better and for much, much worse, that's how we've always known who we were talkin' to: Government's the one who's packin'.
Welch did a podcast yesterday about the crumpling loathsomeness of American aviation since a glorious period of deregulation thirty years ago.
We put this nightmare together, we can take it apart.
You'll have to be courageous and independent, though... No more of the whining like we heard yesterday from Lamas and Bob in Texas.
Crid at April 12, 2017 1:39 PM
@ Gail - you are mistaken. Rule 21 section H is exactly on-point.
The plane had more persons on it than it could lawfully or safely carry. 4 people had to get off. At this point, the safety of the aircraft is in play, so Section H is entirely applicable. It doesn't matter how they got to that state - the contract does not address that situation in any case.
Even if it were not, Federal law gives the captain of the aircraft virtually-unlimited powers to remove people from the aircraft if, in the captain's judgement, they need to be removed for the safe operation of the aircraft.
The contract specifies how persons will be selected to be 'bumped' if the incentives specified in the contract do not produce enough willing volunteers. Presuming that they followed that procedure, and it produced the name of Dr Dao, they were within their rights to tell him to get off the plane. Once he refused to comply, subsection 2 and or 4 kicks in - failure to comply with crew instructions for the safety ofvthe aircraft - and they were within their rights to have him removed, by force if necessary. There's no contractual commitment on United that they have to transport you once your butt hits a seat.
He's lucky not to be facing a Federal charge of interfering with the flight crew.
Once he showed up at the aircraft door again, the captain would be completely within his rights to refuse him passage, based on his prior refusal to comply with crew instructions = safe operation of the aircraft.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 1:46 PM
Now I have to go catch a plane. Not United, as it happens.
Only to add, in response to Isab and others, that you are of course correct that United has a horrible PR problem and their staff did not handle it well. Never said otherwise. But the fact remains that United were within their rights, under their contract and/or under Federal law, to demand that he deplane, and to have him removed if he refused.
@Gail, and the remark about 'have you looked at Section 21?', if you were paying attention, you would have seen that I was quoting chapter and verse of Section 21 in the other thread on this subject, hours prior to your post. If you're going to try and snipe at me, best if you could keep up. In similar vein, I have been polite and courteous throughout, if you choose to continue to bait me I will simply put you on 'ignore'. I didn't start with insults, you did, and my tolerance for such things is limited.
I'll be back in however long it takes Delta to get me to Detroit.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 2:07 PM
Now I have to go catch a plane. Not United, as it happens.
Only to add, in response to Isab and others, that you are of course correct that United has a horrible PR problem and their staff did not handle it well. Never said otherwise. But the fact remains that United were within their rights, under their contract and/or under Federal law, to demand that he deplane, and to have him removed if he refused.
@Gail, and the remark about 'have you looked at Section 21?', if you were paying attention, you would have seen that I was quoting chapter and verse of Section 21 in the other thread on this subject, hours prior to your post. If you're going to try and snipe at me, best if you could keep up. In similar vein, I have been polite and courteous throughout, if you choose to continue to bait me I will simply put you on 'ignore'. I didn't start with insults, you did, and my tolerance for such things is limited.
I'll be back in however long it takes Delta to get me to Detroit.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 12, 2017 2:07 PM
"The plane had more persons on it than it could lawfully or safely carry. 4 people had to get off."
llamas - you are incorrect. The plane had a safe and lawful number of persons on it. United attempted to take four people off the plane so they could put four different people on the plane. And I haven't seen any report that they allowed the four latecomers to board the plane and stand in the aisle (thus exceeding the limit) while they were booting four paying passengers. If you have seen such a report, again, please provide a link.
"Even if it were not, Federal law gives the captain of the aircraft virtually-unlimited powers to remove people from the aircraft if, in the captain's judgement, they need to be removed for the safe operation of the aircraft."
Irrelevant. First, there is no report that indicated Dr. Dao quietly sitting in his seat was endangering the safe operation of the aircraft, so he didn't "need to be removed" for that reason. United was quite clear that he was being removed to allow an employee to fly.
Second, there is no report that the captain's judgment was ever called upon, or that the captain ever became involved in this situation. Again, if you have information to the contrary, a link would be appreciated.
Brad R at April 12, 2017 2:23 PM
I will say this much: Contract law having to do with air transportation is unlike any other contract law. There are all sorts of complications -- government regulations (airlines are sorta kinda treated like utilities), terms of carriage, international treaties, the Warsaw Convention, yada yada. It is wise not to make any assumptions about what is or isn't legal regarding an airline ticket. That said, legalities aside, United handled this very badly.
Cousin Dave at April 12, 2017 2:24 PM
"The plane had more persons on it than it could lawfully or safely carry. 4 people had to get off. "
This is conjecture on your part.
The four people getting off (or not getting on in the first place) could have and should have been the United dead heading flight crew.
This was a situation created by the airline itself, and the gate agent, not by the weather and not by Doctor Dau.
Who caused this situation (United Airlines) and their failure to have a proceedure in place to offer enough money to get passengers to voluntarily give up their seats before involuntary deplaning was resorted to, matters.
There are reports that a passenger offered to give up his seat for 1600 and the gate agent laughed at him. (This isnt going to play well in front of a jury)
United had options here. They chose to forceably remove a ticketed, and seated passenger to make room for a dead heading crew member.
You don't get to argue federal aircraft safety regulations as a safe harbor for a self created problem.
What started off as a contract dispute devoved into assault and battery due to the actions of United.
And if any United employee was involved in the smear campaign afterwards that is just icing on the tort(e)
Isab at April 12, 2017 2:38 PM
in between meeting and conf call quickie --
llamas, reading your response, I have my doubts you're a lawyer. (seriously? the plane was overloaded when it had exactly the number of paying customers as seats? The four united employees were not on the plane, nor were they booked to be on it, which is why the passengers were boarded.) In any case, it is hard for me to believe your practice has anything to do with contracts or statutes. I asked above, will ask again -- what is your practice area?
you are vaguely waving your hand at "federal law" without specifying. Clearly you know a law my federal judge friend and I don't. Can you cite it for me, please, so we can duscuss it?
oh, looky, more lawyers agreeing with me. http://www.ibtimes.com/united-airlines-dragging-passenger-plane-was-illegal-says-lawyer-heres-why-2524701
And even taking all that aside, the brutality would be a lawsuit in itself.
Gail at April 12, 2017 2:47 PM
WTF? Bunny, we don't care about your "meetings"!
You have *blog* responsibilities now...
You really need to get over yourself!
Actual commerce is for teh gays.
Crid at April 12, 2017 3:10 PM
Great. So I do not have to do with the crew says if I don't think it's reasonable. Good to know.
Radwaste at April 12, 2017 3:24 PM
Great. So I do not have to do with the crew says if I don't think it's reasonable. Good to know.
Radwaste at April 12, 2017 3:24 PM
The regulations themselves state what is a reasonable request, and what is not. This really isnt rocket science.
It is extremely difficult to be in violation of aircraft safety regularions, when you are sitting quietly in your seat, with your cell phone off, your carry on's stowed, your tray table up, and your seat in an upright position with your seatbelt on.
Never mind that the plane was still at the gate, and not even moving. :-).
Isab at April 12, 2017 3:37 PM
Yooooo guyyyythhh---
It's hard not to hate Chicago. Most of it is fucking ugly.I've had some profoundly moving times there with some indescribably wonderful people... But almost always in hotels. Honestly, the good times in the Windy City may have made this ride worthwhile.
But I still hate Chicago... For being mean and stupid.
Crid at April 12, 2017 4:11 PM
> Great. So I do not have to do...
Hang on a sec! Here's a compelling new legal principle! (Attention also-- Lamaz, Bob in Texas, others)
Consider this, in the earlier thread, from Sister G, the attorney:
> if you don't live under a rock,
> you surely will have noticed
> there's a bit of a brouhaha
> about this.
And the preceding comment from Sister M, also a JD:
> that particular party might have
> been with a different doctor who
> has a similar name
Juries, composed as a rule by clusters of people who are not very bright, often feel that their incidental participation in matters of national interest is a chance to make their (impatient) magnificence felt in the Issues of the Day... Especially as it ripples to innocent parties through happenstance like similar names.
In a case like this, it would I suspect be the pattern of a jury, especially a Chicago jury, to punish the shit out of United without regard to the involvement of those other hideous forces, union labor and headbusting Chicago cops.
Youse guys keep saying The law/rules very specifically say this or that.
Gail (and others) keep saying Ever persuade a jury?
You'd rather be right than win, as if that meant you were aligning with the nice guys.
Crid at April 12, 2017 4:45 PM
IOW----
I think saying "You are mistaken" (instead of "You're mistaken"), and saying 'Rule XYZ section 4 is exactly on-point,' with that goofy little dash, means that you didn't finish law school overseas, and certainly not in Estados Unidos.
C'mon. C'mon. M the JD says law school in some countries is a single year, with a generous summer vacation to drink and get laid in Ibiza.
Tell the truth. "I went to law school" does not mean "I graduated," and certainly doesn't mean "I am a lawyer in the United States." C'mon. Don't be Artemis.
Crid at April 12, 2017 5:01 PM
You must comply with the instructions of the aircraft crew. End Of Story. If you don't, United can refuse to transport you. And they did.
So then, should a flight attendant order that I rape another passenger my refusal will result in federal charges?
lujlp at April 12, 2017 9:17 PM
" Dao and his wife initially agreed to get off the plane, passenger Jayse Anspach said. But once they found out that the next flight wasn't until Monday afternoon, he demurred and sat back, saying he was a physician who needed to get to work the next day.
The harder the officers tried to get the man to leave, the harder the man insisted he stay.
"He was very emphatic: 'I can't be late. I'm a doctor. I've got to be there tomorrow,' " Anspach recalled.
Joya and Forest Cummings were sitting behind Dao on the United flight and began recording video after an airline supervisor asked Dao to leave the plane and he refused.
Dao was not belligerent when speaking to the airline officials, the Cummings said. Dao only started to get mildly upset when the second officer came on the plane after he continued to refuse to leave. The Cummingses both said Dao never raised his voice when speaking to the officers and airline officials, and that reports that Dao acted belligerent are simply not true.
The doctor's pleas didn't work. Moments later, he was being dragged down the aisle. At one point, passengers said, Dao hit his head on an armrest. Video shows blood streaming from his mouth."
New video has come out of about a minute leading up to him being jerked out of his seat. Now United is really starting to apologize.
crella at April 12, 2017 9:23 PM
Thanks for that update.
Crid at April 12, 2017 10:20 PM
(Watching all the tentacled outcomes from a story like this could be a lot of work.)
Crid at April 12, 2017 10:23 PM
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html
Here is a pretty good legal analysis of why you people claiming the airline had the absolute right to do this are so very wrong.
Isab at April 12, 2017 11:06 PM
Update/ correction:
The doctor who was assaulted in the airline fiasco is indeed the same guy charged for trading drugs for sex almost two decades ago.
Still not relevant to the matter at hand.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-united-david-dao-20170412-story.html
Michelle at April 13, 2017 1:48 AM
@ Gail - firstly, some housekeeping. You appear to have formed the erroneous assumption that I am a lawyer, or that I claim to be a lawyer, and then questioned me on that basis. But I never said or implied that I was a lawyer. You asked me which law school I attended, and I truthfully answered the question you asked me.
To prevent further erroneous assumptions, I will be as plain as I can possibly be. I attended IOCSOL, exactly as I stated, but I did not take the examination for the Bar, and I am not and have never been a qualified lawyer, whether in the UK or anyplace else. I hope this is absolutely clear to you now. If it helps, I freely admit to being a barrack-room lawyer.
Secondly, to the matter at hand. With the usual caveats about based-on-what-we-know-today and may-be-altered-by-new-information - Yes, the aircraft contained more paying passengers than there were seats available for them - not seats physically present in the aircraft, but seats available to paying passengers. United oversold the flight, but the contract allows them to do that (Rule 1 (Definitions) and Rule 5G). Similarly, the contract does not prevent United from altering the number of seats available on the flight for paying passengers, at any time. So the number of available seats is what United says it is, at any time. If the flight is oversold, the contract merely provides processes for reducing the number of paying passengers to match the number of available seats.
The contract does not contain any provision to alter a passenger's status by virtue of the fact that he made it onto the aircraft and into a seat. United is not suddenly contractually obligated to carry that passenger on that flight in that seat, any more than they were before he took his seat.
Similarly, there is no magic moment where the contract states 'at this point, the number of seats available to paying passengers becomes fixed and United must fill all those seats with paying passengers, no matter what.'
Assuming that United went through the contractually-defined steps to attempt to make the number of passengers match the number of available seats (as reporting to this point suggests that they did) then eventually they arrived at the point where they had to remove passengers involuntarily (chosen using the processes defined in Rule 25) in order to get the aircraft to a safe and lawful condition for flight. The cabin crew told Dr Dao he had to get off - he first agreed, then refused. Reporting suggests that the aircraft's first officer was involved at this point - if so, Rule 21, section H, subsections 2 and 4 are definitely in play. He refused to get off, and so United called the cops.
Now, I was going to say that I look forward to seeing your actual arguments as to why this is not so, and in what manner United breached their contract with Dr Dao. But I won't be saying that. Because I note that, despite the warning, you continue to express yourself in terms like this:
'you are vaguely waving your hand at "federal law" without specifying. Clearly you know a law my federal judge friend and I don't. Can you cite it for me, please, so we can duscuss it?'
The relevant Federal law/regulations are
49 USC 1511
14 CFR 91.8
14 CFR 121.533
49 USC 44902(b)
14 CFR 382.31 (d)
and they say about-exactly what I said they say, which was
'Federal law gives the captain of the aircraft virtually-unlimited powers to remove people from the aircraft if, in the captain's judgement, they need to be removed for the safe operation of the aircraft.'
Feel free to share this information with your 'Federal judge friend'.
Now, since you continue to express yourself in this manner, I have a simple cure for that, and it goes like this (click).
llamas at April 13, 2017 3:36 AM
" Yes, the aircraft contained more paying passengers than there were seats available for them - not seats physically present in the aircraft, but seats available to paying passengers. "
This is factually incorrect which is why Federal statues on bumping don't apply.
You are trying to bootstrap here, and failing badly.
The plane wasn't overbooked. So the regulations on bumping don't apply. There has been a lot of sloppy journalism on this incident.
Most of them seem to be either dupes or willing shills for United.
Gail is making fun of you for a reason. You don't have a clue what you are talking about on this topic.
You doubled down on beclowning yourself.
It reminds me of the argument I got into with some dick who was trying to tell me what was required for a private citizen to do an interstate gun transfer. The only problem was that he was looking at the part of the statute that applied to FFL holders, and not private citizens.
Isab at April 13, 2017 4:28 AM
llamas, as I've already pointed out, the "safe operation of the aircraft" argument doesn't apply.
I see you conspicuously fail to mention 14 CFR 250.2a, which to my unschooled eye seems to pretty clearly state that passengers with reservations take priority over passengers without. I'm sure you have some convoluted reasoning about how United can unilaterally decree after the fact that a passenger who shows up after the plane has boarded, without a ticket or a seat assignment, nevertheless holds "confirmed reserved space" on the plane. All I can say is, good luck getting that past a jury...or the FAA.
(Thanks, Isab, for the Naked Capitalism link. Very interesting.)
Brad R at April 13, 2017 6:26 AM
Our little bitchslaps teach lessons obliquely.
We might complain that regulation didn't protect this passenger (or any of the affected parties, including the cops and the airline) from a bad outcome...
But it remains the case that there's an enormous amount of regulation in play here, with customers favored in an enormous number of contingencies. And I'm certain that any airline professionals visiting the discussion would be amazed how few of the rules have been discussed.
And again, no one has suggested there was any risk from the *flight*...
...That's my favorite kind of airline story.
Crid at April 13, 2017 7:21 AM
> United oversold the flight
Lamass, NO. No, they didn't oversell the flight.
That is a thing that did not happen.
They really, really needed to get a crew to Louisville in a hurry, for reasons which might by a charitable heart be described as Christian... United didn't want to inconvenience another flight as well.
But they got a little stingy with the checks, they got impatient with their customers, and they got reliant on flatfoots from the City of Broad Shoulders ("non-life threatening injuries. Ongoing investigation.")
Crid at April 13, 2017 7:27 AM
Dao ('pain' in Vietnamese) is a psych case. He is a manipulator. Mental Health issues are so alien to normal ppl that normal ppl don't recognize high functioning psych cases.
I believe Dao has hijacked the emotions of ppl who are emotional. Which is kinda funny seeing how when we think of hijacking, airplanes immed. come to mind.
adambein at April 13, 2017 10:35 AM
Oh goodie! First a faux legal expert who (perhaps) took a legalishy seminar or two in another country forty years ago, and now a faux psychologist.
So, let me guess, adambein. You took freshman psych in North Korea in 1968?
Here's a helpful tip. Real mental health experts who are qualified to make mental health assessments do not make such assessments about strangers they have never met, particularly when their sole basis for that assessment is a short video clip of the person in the process of having their nose broken and two front teeth knocked out. Therefore, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that you, like llamas, are talking out of your ass.
See, and here's the thing about talking out of your ass. The more authoritatively you state the opinion you are abjectly unqualified to make, the more abysmally idiotic you look.
Gail at April 13, 2017 11:27 AM
> Real mental health experts who are
> qualified to make mental health
> assessments do not make such
> assessments about strangers they
> have never met, particularly when
> their sole basis for that
> assessment is a short video clip
> of the person in the process of
> having their nose broken and two
> front teeth knocked out.
☑
In 2017, the guy on the street is a film producer. He's a business executive, a financier, a renowned sports figure, a designer of cellphones, a lover of women, and an attorney... But more than ANY OTHER THING in 2017, the guy on the street imagines himself to be psychologically sophistimicated.
Emotions, motives, nuance, all that stuff.
When people pretend to be lawyers or scientists, we can clearly hear the cheese in their voices, as in the present case. But bogus deployment of psychological insight is so dirt-common in today's rockin' popular culture that it's hard to discern in typical conversational language; and psychology itself is moist with frogwash, confounding detection even further.
The solution, as Gail has just demonstrated, is to actual READ the bullshit which someone has committed to words in front of you and think for two seconds about whether or not it makes a lick of fucking sense, and about whether you could imagine even a pedestrian professional saying such a thing.
Boyfriend is busted. (The Frosh Psy NK '68 is a nice touch.)
Crid at April 13, 2017 11:53 AM
WHEN is this woman gonna buy comment software with editing capabilities to protect us from these devastating humiliations????
???
Crid at April 13, 2017 12:03 PM
Also, that should have been 'peckerheadedly' at April 12, 2017 4:45 PM.
Software, right? I know. I know what you mean.
Crid at April 13, 2017 12:14 PM
Like I said, logistics.
Crid at April 13, 2017 12:29 PM
When you're done fretting over your typos, Crid, what say you and I clean out this comment section for Amy, United-style. I propose we drag out the faux experts first, and then tackle the merely fatuous, ignorant, shrill, and/or humorless.
Gail at April 13, 2017 12:45 PM
"and then tackle the merely fatuous, ignorant, shrill, and/or humorless."
Fine by me. I'm awesome!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 13, 2017 3:59 PM
Excellent. If you'd care to join the brute squad, maybe we can make some inroads on the whiny and self-righteous as well.
Gail at April 13, 2017 4:11 PM
Let's publish the names of the thugs that assaulted him, and any personal dirt we can find about them. They dished it out, let them take it.
jdgalt at April 13, 2017 7:44 PM
Humorless? Oh dear. I fear that I would not survive scrutiny. Perhaps I need accordion lessons.
Brad R at April 14, 2017 4:41 AM
Gail Says:
"The more authoritatively you state the opinion you are abjectly unqualified to make, the more abysmally idiotic you look."
I have been telegraphing this exact idea here for years here without much success.
This blog has a very wide collection of individuals who speak with great authority about subjects that they clearly know very little about.
This particular comment section isn't unique in that regard, this is par for the course. It just so happens that in this isolated case the consensus opinion happens to align with the expert opinion.
This isn't by design or habit though. By pure chance alone we would expect this to happen from time to time.
Things will only change here when people actually respect expertise and understand the limits of their own knowledge.
I recall for example another airline discussion that took place here with regard to a passenger who was strapped to the seat with tape in a manner that could have legitimately lead to his death due to the poor execution of this tactic.
Many of the people here who now are coming down on the overly aggressive nature of airline were back then arguing that it didn't matter what was done to that individual and that if he died it was his own fault with no possible legal ramifications.
Again they were all quite authoritative without having an ounce of legal background to justify their claims.
The fundamental problem with this blog is that people are very apt to try and transform their opinions into fact without a proper background to justify their confidence.
Artemis at April 14, 2017 7:17 AM
Artie, unlike you, Gail has told us from whence her authority is derived. She's a practicing attorney in the US.
Conan the Grammarian at April 14, 2017 7:48 AM
"This blog has a very wide collection of individuals who speak with great authority about subjects that they clearly know very little about."
Unlike, say, the internet.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2017 11:04 AM
Here's a dean at Cornell Law School weighing in, saying *gasp* what I'm saying, my federal judge friend is saying, and a boatload of other actual, real-live, qualified, practicing lawyers are saying. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html. Seriously, even if United had been within its rights to ask Dau to deplane, Dau would still have a lawsuit for the brutality, and would still end up with a big settlement. But between the appalling optics and the fact United was unjustified from the very onset of the incident, Mr. Dau will walk away from this a very wealthy man.
Gail at April 14, 2017 11:43 AM
I suck at links. Let's try that again. Dorf on Law: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right ... http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?spref=tw
Gail at April 14, 2017 11:58 AM
"Many of the people here who now are coming down on the overly aggressive nature of airline were back then arguing that it didn't matter what was done to that individual and that if he died it was his own fault with no possible legal ramifications."
That was a totally different situation. If I recal correctly, the plane was in the air, and the guy needed to be restrained.
One of the great things about law school is it teaches you that different fact patterns matter in how the law is applied.
You don't have to resort to a blanket catch 22 statement that the airline has absolute authority to throw you off the plane for any reason including refusing to get off the plane when they want to give away your *paid for* seat.
Artemis, if you are searching for truth you aren't going to find it in chat rooms and blogs. Ambiguity and uncertainty seems to cause you a lot of discomfort.
Are you still wedded to the current and shifting catastrophic climate change theory that has less and less evidence to back it up? Or have you started listening to a different set of experts on that topic?
You fall back on science and expertise without realizing that the answers provided by so called experts and self proclaimed scientists are often just as wrong and politically motivated as the opinions on the blogs.
My JD has been very helpful in teaching me how to analyze fact patterns and apply the law, but I know people who can do this well without the law degree, and people with the law degree who don't seem to be able to do it at all.
Isab at April 14, 2017 12:33 PM
(Didn't know Isab had a JD as well.)
(Listen, if you're a woman here who *doesn't* have a JD, just go ahead and say so now.)
(Gog will keep a list.)
Crid at April 14, 2017 12:43 PM
> The fundamental problem with
> this blog is that
You probably shouldn't read it.
"Fundamental."
Oh well!
Crid at April 14, 2017 12:44 PM
Artemis isn't searching for truth; Artemis is searching for validation, also a poor thing for which to search on the Internet.
Conan the Grammarian at April 14, 2017 1:03 PM
Artemis isn't searching for truth; Artemis is searching for validation, also a poor thing for which to search on the Internet.
Conan the Grammarian at April 14, 2017 1:03 PM
Credentials are a pretty poor substitute for facts and methodical reasoning skills.
If you are pounding the table shouting about your expertise it means you probably already lost the argument on the merits.
Not always, but still....
Isab at April 14, 2017 1:25 PM
What credentials?
Conan the Grammarian at April 14, 2017 1:35 PM
Agree, Isab. E.g., llamas' comments weren't ill-considered because of his lack of a law degree. And most of the rest of the thread was doing a fine of discussing the issues without one. Llamas just got my goat because he made a pretense at superior legal expertise he clearly did not have -- hence why I jumped all over his ass in particular. That and he was trashing the victim of a brutal and unjustified assault as a "petulant fool" and a "functional infant.". Also, it was fun.
Gail at April 14, 2017 2:17 PM
A fine JOB. They were doing a fine JOB.
I see what you mean about the correcting function, Crid.
Gail at April 14, 2017 2:19 PM
See my earlier post about United and the leggings incident earlier this year. United's staff seems to have an absurdly rigid adherence to rules and procedures.
On a side note, I used to be a regular United flyer and never had an incident with them. The United staff at SFO was quick, courteous, and efficient.
Conan the Grammarian at April 14, 2017 2:20 PM
United's back in the news. This time a medical emergency leaves doctors shocked at the lack of proper medical gear.
Shocked, I tell you.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2017 3:32 PM
United plane trouble? We'll put you up for the night in an unheated barracks with no blankets or towels and no, you may not retrieve your warm clothing from your checked baggage. Hotel room? Those are for the crew!
United Airlines: We Love To Fly And It Shows.
Taking care of passengers, not so much.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2017 3:55 PM
...but if you fly business class, at least you get a free scorpion.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39599999
Gail at April 14, 2017 4:20 PM
"if you fly business class, at least you get a free scorpion. "
Unbelievable. Business class on United and the scorpion isn't even chocolate-covered!
WTH, United?!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2017 5:02 PM
Yonder:
Crid at April 14, 2017 6:08 PM
Oh, fed on gluten-free mealworms. You only get those on Air Emirates.
Gail at April 14, 2017 6:09 PM
No problemo, Crid. United is hiring llamas to school all those ignorant legal types on what the contract terms *really* mean.
Gail at April 14, 2017 6:12 PM
Conan Says:
"Artemis isn't searching for truth; Artemis is searching for validation, also a poor thing for which to search on the Internet."
If I was searching for validation this would be the last place I would look.
Exactly when have I received any form of validation here that would convince me that this would be a viable strategy?
Everything I say here is in an effort to push people toward truth and have them avoid making massive logical screw ups... which happens quite often.
The part of my comment you did not enjoy is that you know exactly what I am talking about with folks here speaking with immense authority when they have no background knowledge on the subject matter.
Most of the folks coming down on Llamas here are guilty of their exact same behavior on a repeated basis.
I am simply calling out the hypocrisy. As usual this has rubbed you the wrong way... but it always hurts when someone forces you to confront your own demons.
Artemis at April 15, 2017 2:27 AM
Isab Says:
"Credentials are a pretty poor substitute for facts and methodical reasoning skills.
If you are pounding the table shouting about your expertise it means you probably already lost the argument on the merits."
You know... you folks really need to get your stories straight.
Crid and Conan are constantly ranting at me because I don't share enough about credentials... and you are constantly ranting about how I am tossing credentials in your face.
Which is it?... too much or too little?... you folks cannot have it both ways on this one. You need to pick a lane.
At the end of the day Isab I really don't toss credentials in anyone's face. On this point Crid and Conan are correct and you are flat out wrong.
I go to great efforts to avoid rubbing my own expertise in anyone's face.
What you do not like is when I point out that something you have said is demonstrably incorrect and that you shouldn't speak with authority on subjects where your own background knowledge is clearly lacking.
A great example of this is an exchange we had on climate change over a year ago. This happens to be an issue where your own opinion is in direct opposition to the consensus opinion of 97+% of all experts in the field (notice I am not talking about my expertise here... but that of independently recognized experts).
During our discussion I asked you point blank what your main opposition point was and you explained how the scientists weren't taking into account the net positing CO2 contribution of trees to the atmosphere in their models.
When you said this I was floored by your ignorance of the subject material because trees (like all plants) have a net negative CO2 contribution because their rate of photosynthesis is ~10x higher than their rate of respiration.
Despite this astounding level of ignorance of the subject material you spoke (and continue to speak with) an unreasonable level of authority on this subject... even after I pointed out this gap in your knowledge as it pertains to this subject.
How does this behavior demonstrate your grasp of "facts and methodical reasoning skills"?
As I said... Llamas' behavior in this thread isn't aberrant for this blog. Most of the people now raking him over the coals here are guilty of his exact same behavior under different circumstances.
In fact Isab, you are of of the people most guilty of this behavior.
As best as I can tell Gail is the only person criticizing Llamas here who is innocent of doing what he has done here.
The fact that you happen to be on the right side of this issue vis a vis alignment with expert opinion isn't a matter of your logic and reasoning... a stopped watch is correct two times a day as well and that isn't because it is running as a proper precision instrument.
It just so happens that your personal opinion matches the expert opinion in this case. You have demonstrated time and time again that you no issues dismissing the expert opinion on a wide range of subjects out of hand if it happens not to fit with what you already believe.
Artemis at April 15, 2017 2:44 AM
Isab Says:
"That was a totally different situation. If I recal correctly, the plane was in the air, and the guy needed to be restrained."
The details of that case were indeed different.
The point I am making is that there was no scarcity of arm chair "legal experts" talking with the same level of ignorant authority in that thread as Llamas has done here.
In terms of him needing to be restrained in that case I do not believe that was ever in dispute. What was in dispute was whether or not putting duct tape over the vital breathing passageway of a very drunk person was going beyond what was reasonable.
"Are you still wedded to the current and shifting catastrophic climate change theory that has less and less evidence to back it up? Or have you started listening to a different set of experts on that topic?"
You keep saying nonsense like this Isab... what are you talking about with this "less and less evidence"?
As I said before, you have already demonstrated that you don't understand the fundamentals of climate science... and yet you dismiss all of the research out of hand and just claim without sources that the evidence is diminishing.
You actually have things backwards, the models have only become more robust over time... not less.
By the way, are you still convinced that trees add CO2 to the atmosphere?
Artemis at April 15, 2017 3:05 AM
Ever subdue a drunk?
Ever kiss a girl?
Ever take a risk?
Were you raised in a group home in a non-English-speaking nation?
Crid at April 16, 2017 6:15 AM
> Crid and Conan are constantly
> ranting at me because I don't
> share enough about credentials
Naw, Muffin, you can 'share' whatever you want.
It's more that we can't imagine what life experience could have nourished in you such an outrageous array of ludicrous and unfounded belief.
At this hour, the smart money says you were raised in a group home in some lesser, crueller, stupider nation, one that doesn't speak English.
That's a shame all the way around. For you.
Crid at April 16, 2017 8:42 AM
Awww Crid... we've been through this already. Your trollish antics have become stale and repetitive.
You really need some new material to keep things fresh and entertaining. You aren't much fun anymore and I think it is because you have become senile. I expect better from you and you keep falling short.
I must admit to enjoying how you would rather cast in your lot with climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, creationists and all other matter of irrational nonsense before ever admitting that I was correct on anything.
Artemis at April 16, 2017 8:55 PM
Robert Heinlein (through character, Lazarus Long) once postulated a list of things that any human being should be able to do. Now, in today's age of specialization, such a list is probably impractical. With the complexity of modern society, we can no longer be generalists, we've become insects.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2017 8:47 AM
Artie, have you ever done anything on Long's list? Could you, if you had to?
Ever fired a gun, whittled a stick, or tied a bowline knot? Ever slept under the stars? Ever fished? Ever cooked a meal over an open flame that wasn't a barbecue grill?
Ever written fiction or created a photograph or painting, and submitted your work for review?
Ever become the acknowledged expert on any subject, even for a small group? Which subject? Ever taught that subject?
Ever cut and threaded a lead pipe? Fixed a sink or toilet? Ever installed a dishwasher?
Ever changed a car battery, drained the oil, or bled the master cylinder? Points and plugs?
Ever played a musical instrument in front of an audience?
Ever written and delivered a speech in front of an audience?
Ever started your own business?
Ever taken a beating? Ever given one?
Ever done anything but carp about your unacknowledged genius?
Artie, I don't ask to put you down, but your previous posts give the impression of someone who's led a pretty sheltered life, with little experience in unstructured encounters. Yet you hold yourself as smarter and wiser than everyone else; the most experienced and worldly commenter on the blog.
Alfred Thayer Mahan described "contact" as the dividing point between strategy and tactics. You seem to have spent your life on the strategic side of life, with plans and theories and little contact. And you belittle those who have experience on the tactical side of life.
Eisenhower never fought on the ground, yet he led the Allies to victory in World War II. How? He listened to the generals under him who had fought on the ground, who had made contact with the enemy, who were expert or experienced tacticians.
Yes, putting duct tape across the mouth of a violent and obnoxious drunk is potentially dangerous, for the drunk. But until you've had to deal with something like that, you don't understand a situation in which the best solution is one in which someone could still get hurt.
You don't give any indication of ever having dealt with situations like that. And your rush to judgement indicates you haven't given situations like that much thought, outside of the theoretical.
And, before you ask, I've never died gallantly. Nor have I butchered a hog, conned a ship, set a bone (despite numerous first aid classes and practice simulations), or comforted the dying. And the only invasion I've planned is in war-games. But, as Long only holds that a human being should be able to do those things, I'm not diminished by not having done them. I think I could, if called upon, perform adequately in those capacities. My fighting was definitely not efficient either, but since I won both encounters, I'll take it.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2017 9:51 AM
It remains that placing the judgment of passengers above that of the crew, or allowing them to make decisions will be and has been fatal. You can check the extensive list maintained at jacdec.de if you like.
Any encouragement this may give to the special snowflake who wants to make personal demands will be bad.
Crews already have problems getting passengers to pay attention to anything they say; passengers even go after their belongings instead of leaving the plane when the damned plane is on fire.
Someone will bury that person of matchless self-worth.
Meanwhile, no amount of money will undo the beating, received because someone could not understand that when a real uniform arrives on a plane, things have gone beyond your personal ability to determine what you're doing for the next few hours.
Here's Mike Rowe on the subject, replying to a question posed by "Donna". He's a bit clearer on conditions in the field, so to speak:
Radwaste at April 17, 2017 11:05 AM
"Artie, unlike you, Gail has told us from whence her authority is derived. She's a practicing attorney in the US."
That's an odd statement, because people of great learning often make statements in error, or which are fallacious. Credentials establish that the speaker has the history of education on the subject, but any argument they advance still depends on the evidence. I am sure you are aware of the fallacy, "Argument from Authority".
Gail has described backing for her position, as llamas has his. An observation that the law is difficult to understand or confusing speaks to the inadequacy or special intent of those who write it, not the validity of the issue they discuss.
Which is why there is argument about Dao's behavior and that of the police, as well as general distrust and hatred of attorneys and the special language mandatory to restore, not keep, order.
Radwaste at April 17, 2017 11:14 AM
Yes, I'm aware of the fallacy. That's not what's going on here.
Artemis insists his(?) arguments will carry the day and should be judged by themselves as he calls any objection to his argument "stupid." But he cites no expertise or authority for his positions. He simply expects that because he is making the argument, we should accept its accuracy and premise. Then he delivers a condescending harangue of anyone who disputes his imagined expertise or counters his argument, even as the dissenter makes clear the education and experience informing the dissent.
It's one thing to throw out specific arguments in a gathering of people who know each other's bona fides, but it's another to expect that a crowd of people who don't know you simply accept you as an expert or accept your argument as a valid argument without telling them why they should give your argument a hearing at all.
You're welcome to give Artemis the benefit of the doubt or to accept his arguments (they're great, he says so himself), but until he demonstrates that he he has some expertise (education, training, experience, or even simply reading a book) on the subjects he addresses, provides supporting evidence with his argument, or demonstrates through his arguments that he has some applicable (or any) real world experience, I can't.
He can tell us about his education or experience in business or law. He can tell us about his work as a flight attendant or a pilot. He can tell us about a book he read. He can tell us about a flight he was on in which an unruly passenger was restrained. He can argue from the point of view of someone who has had to restrain an unruly drunk or been through an armed robbery; being someone who, by virtue of that experience knows what a violent and dangerous person can do to the psyche of a trapped crowd. He can tell us about the CCW class he took in which he had to seriously consider how far he could go to protect himself or a loved one.
Until then, he's the loudmouth in the corner shouting that he knows better than the coach how to direct the team or better than the CEO how to run the company. He might, but he won't or can't demonstrate why he should be taken at his word and the future of the team or employees put in his hands.
In this case, Gail is telling us she's a lawyer and is using her education and experience to create some compelling arguments. Is she automatically right? No. But until proven wrong, her arguments bear some consideration due to her experience and training. Llamas' too, as he cites his own training on the subject, but admits his experience on the subject is less than hers. And Isab, also a practicing JD, backs up Gails arguments, giving them additional validity.
I can only argue the business side of what United did. I have training and experience on that aspect of it. Does that mean my argument is automatically right due to that training and experience? No. But it does mean my argument on that aspect is informed by something other than my own ego.
I won't argue the legal as I have no training or experience on that aspect of it. Gail, Isab, and Llamas have training and/or experience on legal issues, so I'll leave the arguments on the legal aspects of this to them.
But here comes Artemis who, without supporting education or experience, says unequivocally that Llamas is wrong, stupid, and arrogant. And using a completely unrelated and dissimilar situation as his evidence that the bloggers on this post who didn't agree with him then are hypocritical and wrong now.
Is Llamas wrong on this? Gail and Isab make a pretty good argument that he is. I can't say definitively, not being trained or experienced on legal issues beyond having worked for a lawyer for 2 years in the early '90s. But Artemis can, and does. He's the expert. Just ask him.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2017 12:48 PM
I'm reading The Death of Expertise right now. It's more a polemic than an actual study, but in its pages, I can see Artemis. He argues that any claim to education or experience in a subject is credentialism, an "appeal to authority," and should be dismissed immediately as such.
He argues that his arguments, despite the lack of any cited background or authority on his part should be given the same weight and consideration as any argument from a established authority.
"Any assertion of expertise from an actual expert, meanwhile, produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious 'appeals to authority,' sure signs of dreadful 'elitism,' and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a 'real' democracy. Americans now believe that having equal rights in a political system also means that each person’s opinion about anything must be accepted as equal to anyone else’s. This is the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense. It is a flat assertion of actual equality that is always illogical, sometimes funny, and often dangerous." ~ Tom Nichols (The Death of Expertise)
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2017 1:00 PM
Offshore.
Non-native English.
68% masculine.
Broken home/autistic.
Indoor life/Group home. (I am so sherrrr about that.)
Conan, remind me to send you some links later.
Crid at April 17, 2017 6:30 PM
Okay, nevermind, here they are, both from 2013. (I've sent them to others here who are ready to take the point).
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/10/government-is-magic.html
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2013/11/healthcare-gov-and-the-gulf-between-planning-and-reality/
Crid at April 17, 2017 6:50 PM
I'd guess 98% feminine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis.
llamas attended a law school in another country (note that he says nothing about graduating); he is not and has never been a lawyer anywhere. Whereas Isab and I hold JDs in the U.S., and we and others in the thread cited several other articles by U.S. lawyers agreeing with our position. The experts are pretty unanimous on this one -- United made a major boo-boo here.
Gail at April 17, 2017 6:55 PM
IOW, if you could pay pay her fees, Gail would probably be a plenty sturdy barrister. She practices; she apparently didn't go to Yale to marry the idiot son of some midcentury industrialist. I read a thing once that said Yale law is somewhat competitive.
> It remains that placing the
> judgment of passengers above
> that of the crew
Drama-Queenie. I noted above at least once and maybe twice but I won't check because I'm on the tiny machine and have had a glass and a half of Merlot in a Holiday Inn—
This was not a safety crisis on an airborne flight... It was a straightforward, DAMNABLY straightforward, failure of performance in customer service on the ground, where the dickswinging machismo of war-trained fighter pilots carries little weight. And then Chicago constabularies, unremarkably given their heritage, got carried away. SYIC.
> observation that the law is
> difficult to understand or
> confusing speaks to the
> inadequacy or special intent
> of those who write it, not
> the validity of the issue
> they discuss.
See you in court.
Seriously?—— "Issues" have "validity"?
I keep a special instance of validity in my pants. You'll find it near the bottom travel of the zipper.
Usually.
Crid at April 17, 2017 7:37 PM
We've had debates on the whole Artemis the Greek goddess vs.Artemis Fowl the character on whether it's a boy's name or a girl's name. Artemis refused to divulge even that bit of personal data.
Given that this poster's previously-used screen name was Orion and Artemis the goddess killed Orion, I've been an advocate of our Artemis being female. Ppen leans toward the Artemis Fowl origin for the name and our Artemis being male.
In the end, it doesn't matter, this is a very sheltered person who has difficulty navigating the world, but who has no compunction about telling other people how to do so. Either way, the name is rooted in fantasy and not reality, much like the poster himself (or herself).
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2017 4:24 AM
Conan,
I fully appreciate that you are trying to take up Crid's mantel as his protege or something. However before I waste any time addressing the fluff in your statement, I need for you to provide evidence for this claim:
"Ever done anything but carp about your unacknowledged genius?"
I have never contended anything of the sort.
Can you please show me where I have claimed that I was smarter than anyone?
On the contrary I can show you many instances where folks like you, Isab, or Crid have implied or stated that they are more intelligent than I am.
Everything I deal with from you folks is mere projection of your own faults onto me.
You for example by asking such silly questions as those imply I might be so stupid as to be incapable of tying my own shoes.
The entire reason that you, and Isab, and Crid have an issue with me isn't because I claim to be a genius... it is because I call you out on your irrational nonsense when you say illogical or unsubstantiated things.
So before we proceed I'm going to need you to show me where I have initiated a conversation with you or anyone else saying how much smarter I am than they are as a justification for anything.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 5:22 AM
Conan Says:
"Yes, I'm aware of the fallacy. That's not what's going on here.
Artemis insists his(?) arguments will carry the day and should be judged by themselves as he calls any objection to his argument "stupid." But he cites no expertise or authority for his positions."
You don't seem to be aware of the fallacy though Conan.
Radwaste is precisely correct in why I make great efforts avoiding throwing credentials or accomplishments in other peoples faces to try and bolster any point I make.
I have gone to such an extreme here that you continually argue that because I refuse to do this is somehow weakens or diminishes my arguments.
The point is that all arguments need to stand independent of of person making the claims.
The person making the claim is wholly irrelevant, and yet folks like you and Crid insist that no argument can be judged unless you can infer the background of the person making the statement.
That notion couldn't be more incorrect.
Arguments should in fact be judged by themselves... that is how logic and reason works.
If you judge the same exact argument differently depending upon who gives it, that is a flaw in your reasoning... not a flaw in the argument.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 5:31 AM
Conan Says:
"He argues that his arguments, despite the lack of any cited background or authority on his part should be given the same weight and consideration as any argument from a established authority."
I have argued no such thing. Now you are just resorting to making things up out of whole cloth.
Please explain to me how having a discussion with a climate change denier such as Isab and calling out her factually inaccurate statements means that I should be given more consideration than the experts?
You do realize that my arguments are on the same side as the experts, right?
You do realize that in such cases it is my opponent who refutes established authority in the field without having any credentials of their own, right?
You have things so backwards that it is mind boggling.
My positions are almost always aligned with that of the experts on any subject and I often provide links to their work to support any claims I make.
What you accuse me of doing is actually what people like you do... shoot your mouth off about topics you know almost nothing about when your opinion runs contrary to the established authorities in the field.
The only thing that my opinion seems to run contrary to around here are folks like you, Crid, and Isab... who have somehow decided to establish yourselves as the authorities on all subjects despite your clear lack of knowledge or understanding in some/most of those fields.
Remind me again how a person without any scientific expertise is in any position to assert the following:
"Are you still wedded to the current and shifting catastrophic climate change theory that has less and less evidence to back it up?"
Where is all of your outrage that "despite the lack of any cited background or authority on her part should be given the same weight and consideration as any argument from a established authority."???
It never happens. You instead save all of that misplaced outrage for the person arguing on the same side as the recognized experts in the field.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 5:54 AM
Do people in your life think you're fun?
Crid at April 18, 2017 5:57 AM
Conan-- See also.
Crid at April 18, 2017 6:03 AM
Whoops, also.
Crid at April 18, 2017 6:04 AM
I mean, in some not-incidental ways, that's the topic of this post as well. Americans have weird ideas about the boundaries and motives of expertise.
It's tragic truth that more than any other differentiating quality, American character nowadays is about government.
The good news is— We're so full of piss, it can't last.
Crid at April 18, 2017 6:07 AM
Conan,
Last but not least I need for you to consider the irony of these two statements:
This one intended for me:
"You don't give any indication of ever having dealt with situations like that. And your rush to judgement indicates you haven't given situations like that much thought, outside of the theoretical."
And this one for yourself:
"But, as Long only holds that a human being should be able to do those things, I'm not diminished by not having done them. I think I could, if called upon, perform adequately in those capacities."
Let that sink in for a moment.
You accuse me of only having a "theoretical" understanding of these issues, therefore I am unqualified to talk about them.
In the very next paragraph you explain how you have no personal experience with any of this... but because you "THINK" you could do it, that alone is sufficient to qualify you to speak on the subject.
Don't you get how crazy all that sounds?
You're entire knowledge base is a theoretical one... you merely "think" you could do it, but have no practical experience with any of it... and yet this lack of practical experience doesn't "diminish" you in the least apparently.
Your perception of lack of practical experience in others diminishes their capacity... but your objective knowledge of your own lack of practical experience doesn't diminish your own capacity at all.
Unbelievable.
As I have said before, it is all projection.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 6:15 AM
Crid Says:
"Do people in your life think you're fun?"
Weren't you the one trying to spend Valentines day evening having a conversation with me?
Where was your loved one?... where was your significant other?
Out of the two of us, you are the only one who seems lonely and desperate.
To put things differently in the party called life my dance card is full while you're standing against the wall all by talking to yourself about how miserable everyone else is.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 6:22 AM
You don't "throw credentials or accomplishments" because you don't have any. And it's not credentialism to state the source of one's expertise or knowledge. One doesn't take bridge building advice from a barber, one seeks out an engineer.
You won't even introduce yourself to the group and tell us if you're a man or a woman, where you live, a little bit about yourself. For instance, we know Crid lives in California (LA) and works in a field ancillary to movie production and that he grew up in an academic environment, Isab and Gail are attorneys, Patrick lives in Florida was in the military, Radwaste works on a government project, lujip has dyslexia, I worked in student loans, etc. Not because we're all appealing to authority, but because these little tidbits of information lent context to a point we were making. You, however, insist on remaining a blank wall, afraid of telling us even one thing about yourself, hiding and afraid of the world.
It really stumps you that two people can independently come to the same conclusion (that you're an idiot). They must be in collusion, right?
And no, I cannot show you where you contended that you were smarter than everyone on this blog because, and I can't say this loudly enough, I don't want to. I don't have time to go through the thousands of past posts to find the ones where you outright held that everyone on this blog was inferior to you in intellect. Any of your posts would usually do to prove this, but you're so dense you won't recognize your own arrogance in them.
However, this post is full of examples where you hold out that you're superior to the rest of us.
Well, thank God we have you to push us toward the truth.
Well, aren't you just a modern-day Cassandra speaking the truth to ears that won't listen; a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. A veritable vox veritas.
A romantic notion, but far from the truth.
Artie, you hijack every thread you're in, telling us how smart you are, how wrong we are, and seeking someone, Gail on this thread, to post "just us" comments to make an ally out of that person. Yet very few of them take the bait.
We've spent how many comments on this thread alone solely on you. This happens every time. You get criticized and spend thousands of words attacking your dissenter and the dissent as uninformed. You hold yourself out to be an expert in everything.
You even tried to tell an active duty police officer how to do his job in a thread a while back, outright telling him he was wrong.
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2017 6:24 AM
Conan Says:
"You don't "throw credentials or accomplishments" because you don't have any."
Based upon what?... your subjective assessment?
You do not have any facts in this area and here you are again making authoritative claims without evidence.
I don't toss them out for very good reasons.
1 - Ultimately they are irrelevant when it comes to matters of objective fact and observation (which is where I generally restrict my claims)
2 - When you do throw credentials out there in this blog you get accused of "credentialism" and your claims are dismissed on the count of your being "arrogant"
It is really a funny little trap that has been setup.
People like you bitch and moan about people lacking credentials while people like Isab bitch and moan that people are tossing credentials in their face and only using arguments from authority.
Ironically... you folks toss both criticisms at me simultaneously over and over again.
Isab contends I only make arguments from authority... and you claim I only make arguments from ignorance.
Both cannot be the same at the same time, and yet here we are.
That is why I refer to you as the confederacy of dunces... because when taken in aggregate your arguments make no sense and none of you even bother to hash it out to get a coherent problem statement that can be addressed.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 7:32 AM
Conan Says:
"And no, I cannot show you where you contended that you were smarter than everyone on this blog because, and I can't say this loudly enough, I don't want to."
No Conan... you cannot do it because it hasn't happened.
I don't go around telling people my arguments are correct because I am smarter than they are.
I will resort to adhominems in response to nonsense such as when you are Crid start in with all manner of personal insults.
I will also call your arguments stupid when they are in fact stupid.
However, a stupid argument can be made by an otherwise intelligent person.
The person and the argument are not the same thing.
And yes, in recent times I have even resorted to calling some of your group as a whole the confederacy of dunces... however if you want to elevate this discussion perhaps you shouldn't resort to calling other folks stupid in the first place.
Any insults I toss your way are ALWAYS in response... I will never initiate a conversation that way, which is why I was careful to stipulate things as such:
"So before we proceed I'm going to need you to show me where I have initiated a conversation with you or anyone else saying how much smarter I am than they are as a justification for anything."
You cannot show such an example because one does not exist.
Your claim is made up, and hence the foundation of the rest of your argument is completely unstable and based on nothing but your own imagination.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 7:39 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, you hijack every thread you're in, telling us how smart you are, how wrong we are, and seeking someone, Gail on this thread, to post "just us" comments to make an ally out of that person. Yet very few of them take the bait."
Another bullshit claim.
I don't even have to be here and folks like Crid are talking about me.
Here is some evidence in this very thread:
"C'mon. Don't be Artemis."
The issue here isn't that I hijack anything... the issue is that for better or worse, some folks here are obsessed with me whether I am in a thread or not.
The real question I think you need to ask yourself is why are you so insulted if I pay a compliment to Gail?
From the second I did that you have written pages and pages to me.
The simpler thing to have done was to just let me compliment Gail and leave me alone about it.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 7:43 AM
One final point... even your examples of me acting superior are a load of nonsense.
Take this quote for example:
"Everything I say here is in an effort to push people toward truth and have them avoid making massive logical screw ups... which happens quite often."
What was this in response to Conan?
Care to take a wild guess?
It was your comment here:
"Artemis isn't searching for truth; Artemis is searching for validation, also a poor thing for which to search on the Internet."
So what is your game Conan?
You want to take pot shots at people and if they so much as defend themselves they are the ones acting superior?
It is all projection and made up bullshit from you.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 7:46 AM
Back to the point.
It appears that United was not the source of goons.
Is there a scenario where the flight crew was NOT required to call uniforms?
Radwaste at April 18, 2017 9:28 AM
One thing to note is that the flight from which Dr. Dao was dragged was a United Express flight. United Airlines (UAL) does not operate the flight or the plane.
United Express consists of nine regional airlines that independently own and operate planes badged with United Express livery that fly feeder flights for United.
Dr. Dao's flight was actually operated by Republic Airways.
In terms of being able to get a flight crew to Louisville in time to avoid a delay ripping through the system, the smaller airline may not have had enough resources to do anything but bump passengers from an already loaded flight.
However, because this was done under the United aegis, by an agent of United, the parent corporation is taking the flack.
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2017 9:47 AM
"Is there a scenario where the flight crew was NOT required to call uniforms?" -- Radwaste
Yes. The scenario where United correctly recognized it had no right to remove an already boarded, seated passenger who was not creating a safety issue or otherwise doing something justifying such a removal under its contract of carriage. (Particularly when, since it was not actually a case of overbooking, it's questionable whether they would even have had a right to deny him boarding, but that is another matter.)
IF Mr. Dau had started shoving other passengers, cursing out flight crew, refusing instructions that were reasonably for the purpose of safety, had he lit up a cigarette and refused to put it out..., THEN there would be reasonable grounds for believing he might create a safety issue, so THEN United would have had grounds to remove him, and IF he refused to leave the plane, THEN they would have had grounds to call security.
(Even then, security could only have used reasonable measures. I submit that breaking a 69-year-old passenger's nose, knocking out two of his teeth, and giving him a concussion is not even close to reasonable. Did you watch those videos? Seriously. Come on.)
As it was, he was sitting there quietly in a seat he'd paid for and had every right to occupy. He'd fully fulfilled his end of the contract. United had no grounds to ask him to leave, much less call security to force him to do so.
United was wrong every step of the way, which I'm sure their lawyers have made clear to them.
Gail at April 18, 2017 10:05 AM
> Where was your loved one?
On that very special holiday, we fuck like moistened, rabid jackrabbits on the prairie until mid-afternoon, then bathe languidly and break for a few hours.
> The issue here isn't that
> I hijack anything.
No? You've never actually taken a point, so no one could say you're thoughtfully participating. The great thing about saying Don't be Artemis™ is that everyone, everyone knew exactly what I was getting at, quickly measuring their own rhetorical positions against an especially repellent & universally respected boundary in blog commentary.
Seriously, do you socialize in any peer group whatsoever? There's a Skinner Box piquancy to your goofiness that deserves explication.
Group home? State-financed?
Crid at April 18, 2017 4:10 PM
> It appears that United was
> not the source of goons.
Maybe it was UA's business partners... Duzzint madder. Blaming the little people would be completely ineffectual. And Munoz apologized, however incompetently: This is his now.
(Though no one in this thread has talked about going after Chicago airport cops in court, though I think they'd make a fine target.)
Some fun reruns:
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/leaving-united-airlines-after-merger
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html
Crid at April 18, 2017 5:54 PM
Flight 3411 was operated by Republic Airlines, doing business as United Express. Republic is one of 9 airlines that fly feeder routes for the larger airlines under an associated livery.
The employees who called the goon squad were Republic employees, not United employees. Republic also operates flights under the American Eagle and Delta Connection liveries for American and Delta.
==============================
The Chicago Aviation Service are not part of the Chicago Police Department and do not have full police powers. They are part of the Chicago Department of Aviation. While they cannot file arrest reports nor carry guns, proposals have been made to allow them to do both.
This is what happens when every pissant government department gets its own in-house goon squad.
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2017 7:18 PM
So this: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze
...says Artemis is probably a man:
Genre: Informal
Female = 1039
Male = 1972
Difference = 933; 65.49%
Verdict: MALE
And Crid's percentage was so eerily accurate I'm wondering if he did what I did -- input a couple of Artemis's posts into the gender guesser -- to come up with it.
Gail at April 18, 2017 7:20 PM
Mere gut.
Through my actual gut grows tragically less mere.
Crid at April 18, 2017 7:58 PM
It correctly guesses me as a woman with regard to my informal writing, but wrongly guesses me as a man when it comes to my legal briefs.
So it's obviously not right all the time, but for whatever it's worth, a sampling of my friends tried it and it guessed all of them correctly.
Gail at April 18, 2017 8:15 PM
> not part of the Chicago
> Police Department
When I looked them up the other night they didn't have their own Wikipedia listing. Having made history, they might have one by now.
Per Balko, there are 18,000 police agencies in the United States. (The list of Fed fuzz alone will drop your jaw.)
Giving each of these entities a properly-edited and -defended Wiki would be an excellent internet initiative.
> It correctly guesses me as
> a woman with regard to my
> informal writing, but wrongly
> guesses me as a man when it
> comes to my legal briefs.
Apologies for any offense, but I think that's wonderful, and flattering to you.
Crid at April 18, 2017 8:26 PM
And when I say they'll drop your jaw....
Etc. I'm here all week. Tip your waitress. Try the veal.
Crid at April 18, 2017 8:28 PM
Also, this--
> you seem to be really caught
> up in an authoritarian
> interpertation of quasi
> government police powers
Yeah ☑
Not just authoritarian interpretation, but there's this nearly erotic eagerness to reduce the conflict to a daydream of the ancient law of the sea etc., where the Captain lays down the rules in a gloriously impatient way and everybody has to put up with it without recourse or redress forever & ever because
Except, y'know, that's not how modern consumer transport works... Especially when the freakflying aeroplane is still on the ground and not even in motion yet.Don't you worry though, everything's under control. By which I mean SYIC.
Crid at April 18, 2017 9:33 PM
Crid Says:
"On that very special holiday, we fuck like moistened, rabid jackrabbits on the prairie until mid-afternoon, then bathe languidly and break for a few hours."
Yeah, I'm going to guess that isn't true. Since we are playing guessing games here. I guess that you are a pudgy senior citizen of sub average height who has never been married and not had much luck in the romantic department and whose prospects have only gotten worse since erectile dysfunction have sent in about a decade ago.
It doesn't hurt for you to fantasize about some alternate life you could have had if you were better looking, more personable, and more successful though. The fact remains that on valentines day evening you were on this blog trying to have a conversation with me while most people with significant others were spending time together.
"No? You've never actually taken a point, so no one could say you're thoughtfully participating."
Here we go again with the pasta on the wall strategy.
Conan claims I was hijacking a thread that had already devolved into a circle jerk pile on of someone... quite simply put there was nothing of substance to hijack.
So when I point out that his claim was unsupported by any tangible evidence... you then show up, refute his position, and try a different smear that you hope will stick.
Except that one doesn't make sense either. My position was quite clear. Since you don't seem to get it I will clarify it for you.
Many of you who were so quick of criticizing Llamas of speaking with authority regarding topics he was not qualified to address with that level of confidence are guilty of the exact same behavior on a continual basis.
I am calling out your hypocrisy, it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to grasp.
"Seriously, do you socialize in any peer group whatsoever? There's a Skinner Box piquancy to your goofiness that deserves explication."
Good grief Crid... you're schtick is so tired and stale. Get some new material already.
Let's just cut to the chase already... you call me abnormal... I point out how you aren't exactly in the mean of the distribution behavior wise... then you declare that I am "obsessed with normalcy".
I then point out you are the one constantly harping about all things abnormal... and you run away until the next time we talk.
You've become so predictable and boring. Not your finest material either, I think you peaked a long time ago.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 9:47 PM
Gail,
You can put stock in the algorithm if you like (i've used it before myself for fun), but as you have pointed out it's not as accurate as you might expect for formal writing.
Crid has already spent a great deal of time whining and complaining to me in the past about how I avoid contractions when I post here.
I don't write informally on this blog. I save that kind of writing for friends and family.
Just as a point of interest, I input your own initial post in this thread and it predicts the following:
Genre: Informal
Female = 220
Male = 260
Difference = 40; 54.16%
Verdict: Weak MALE
I will also point out that it predicts that Isab's first post makes them a man with 90+% confidence:
Genre: Informal
Female = 43
Male = 393
Difference = 350; 90.13%
Verdict: MALE
I suppose we are all men around here... and Isab is the manliest of us.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 9:58 PM
Makes them? That's some might fine formal writin' there, Lou.
I suppose we all fall into that trap once in a while. I know I have. I shudder to admit that I have, on occasion, used a plural pronoun as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. The PC Police and SJWs insist we cannot default to the masculine, tossing aside the age-old rule "in grammar as in life, he embraces she."
Since English does not have a gender neutral pronoun, we're stuck with "they" and "them" as substitutes for the more awkward constructions, "he/she" or "him/her."
And, since this site does not have post-editing capabilities, if you miss the error in the preview, you're stuck with it.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2017 7:14 AM
A pretty good, if not compellingly original, summation from Big Mac.
Indeed.In retrospect, I like every word I've written about this topic.
Except the typos. But maybe even those.
Crid at April 19, 2017 10:47 AM
McArdle makes some good points. Deregulation did allow airlines to compete on price. So, more people were able to fly, but they prioritized lower fares over in-flight service and convenience.
As a result, the market has spoken and we're being crammed into less space than a house cat has when he climbs into a cubby hole. Definitely less comfort. And we're sole "snack boxes" instead of them just putting together a sandwich and letting us purchase that. I gotta eat third-tier brand pretzels and some cheese spread that looks (and tastes, I imagine) like spackling compound that I can spread with a plastic knife that breaks as soon as I try to take it out of the package. I miss having frequent flyer miles and getting upgrades.
Kind of like when people blame Walmart for driving Mom and Pop out of business. Walmart didn't stop shopping at Mom and Pop's store. The customers who prioritized cheap goods and warehouse settings over whatever Mom and Pop offered (which, quite often, wasn't much) put Main Street out of business.
I read in MarketWatch or Forbes or something that United is pretty disorganized. It's a huge conglomerate. Many of the gate agents, ticket agents, and baggage handlers are contractors or employees of contractors. Their training is minimal and their default attitude is surly. Many of the short haul flights are flown by regional airlines, like Flight 3411 in this case. Munoz, or whatever CEO succeeds him, will have his hands full putting socks on this octopus.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2017 11:42 AM
I will also point out that it predicts that Isab's first post makes them a man with 90+% confidence:
Genre: Informal
Female = 43
Male = 393
Difference = 350; 90.13%
Verdict: MALE
I suppose we are all men around here... and Isab is the manliest of us.
Artemis at April 18, 2017 9:58 PM
Well the Democratic party doesn't think I am a *real woman* either which is one of the many reasons I don't vote for them.
I suspect any woman who has worked as a professional writer in any capacity has had a lot of the mushy gender indicitive clap trap beat out of them. My seven years as an Army officer probably reduced it further.
Women have a horrible tendency to use too much passive voice. The Algorithm may be based on that.
And my other excuse is; I am really really old.
What identifies Artemis as most likely a man is his persistence, and his Aspbergery failure to understand when Crid is baiting him or being sarcastic. Artemis pretends to get sarcasm, but then treats it like it was a factual statement in his mind numbingly verbose, off point replies.
Isab at April 19, 2017 3:03 PM
The 90.13% is not a confidence level. It's the proportion of male traits in the writing: (393 ÷ (393 + 43) = .9013). It indicates that Isab's informal writing is 90.13% male - probably, as she speculates, based on active voice versus passive voice and word choice.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2017 8:03 PM
I don't think passive voice has anything to do with it. (I rarely use it, yet, as I said, my informal writing generally registers as female. And I could name you plenty of men who are addicted to passive voice. I really haven't noticed that women are any more prone to it.)
The gender guesser contains a link to a paper that talks about differences in word choice and pronoun use.
The website also notes the algorithm is less accurate if you are not American -- it's based on American English usage.
Say, didn't this used to be a discussion about the United brouhaha?
Gail at April 19, 2017 9:05 PM
> his Aspbergery failure to understand when
> Crid is baiting him or being sarcastic. Artemis
> pretends to get sarcasm, but then treats
> it like it was a factual statement in his
> mind numbingly verbose, off point replies.
Your appreciation of his verge of comprehension is much more literate and attuned than my own. It always just came to the point where I thought 'Jesus, this guy is incredibly boring'. So then I'd slap him around a bit trying to make him interesting. It never worked, but habits are like that.
Good eye.
Crid at April 19, 2017 9:11 PM
> Say, didn't this used to be
> a discussion about the
> United brouhaha?
Well, if you wanna o End Game, here's mine:
The great thing about the McArdle piece is that it doesn't really contain any new thinking. In reviewing Amy's three or four blog posts on the topic, I'm pleased that I came to my clearest understanding in the early hours as I read the best pieces I could find about it. Nobody came up with new ethical or policy revelations in later days.
Human nature, as expressed through consumer behavior with airlines, is not doing us any favors. Of course and obviously, regulation and corporate impulse aren't helping us either. And most obviously of all, it was government constabularies who beat this poor man's head in.
What we can hope for, the best we can hope for, is that this episode demonstrates that we need to let market forces break up these enormous and cruel airline conglomerates.
As a rule, Matt Welch and the kids at Reason magazine and Cato can be trusted to lead the way on this thinking.
But mere thinking it is. There are no promises.
Crid at April 19, 2017 9:31 PM
...wanna *do* end game...
Crid at April 19, 2017 9:34 PM
One last thing about that computer algorithm. It's obviously having a problem distinguishing gender in lawyerly rhetoric. I think that's not because law turns women into men, but because clarity is its own challenging human characteristic.
Given what Conan has noted, we ought not be surprised that Artemis can't see this distinction either.
Crid at April 19, 2017 9:39 PM
Oh, upon re-reading, some of that was Isabel and not Conan.
But I am old, too.
Crid at April 19, 2017 9:42 PM
Isab Says:
"What identifies Artemis as most likely a man is his persistence, and his Aspbergery failure to understand when Crid is baiting him or being sarcastic. Artemis pretends to get sarcasm, but then treats it like it was a factual statement in his mind numbingly verbose, off point replies."
Um... no.
As per usual you are way off in your assessment of factual information.
I understand when Crid is being sarcastic, I just enjoy playing with him.
That is why I continually refer to him as a troll with a stale and repetitive act.
Identifying Crid's antics as trollish should make it pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain that I understand he isn't genuine or serious.
Also, since we are on the subject of your incorrect criticisms here, let's tackle this one from before:
"Ambiguity and uncertainty seems to cause you a lot of discomfort."
If ambiguity and uncertainty are a discomfort for me, please explain why you, Crid, and Conan have spent years debating if I am a man or a woman?
Who cares?... Can't you live with a little ambiguity and uncertainty?
Why does this make you so very uncomfortable that this is even such a hot topic?
Again... your criticisms of me are merely projection of your own issues.
Artemis at April 19, 2017 10:13 PM
Conan Says:
"The 90.13% is not a confidence level. It's the proportion of male traits in the writing: (393 ÷ (393 + 43) = .9013). It indicates that Isab's informal writing is 90.13% male - probably, as she speculates, based on active voice versus passive voice and word choice."
You are correct.
The reported confidence level is somewhere between 60 and 70%... however I am not even certain it is that high when one takes into account specific circumstances.
The same website also predicts that Amy is a man based upon her most recent column here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2017/04/pleaser-burn.html
Genre: Informal
Female = 358
Male = 763
Difference = 405; 68.06%
Verdict: MALE
My point stands that it isn't wise to rely upon this algorithm to tell you anything about someones gender.
It also says that my post at April 18, 2017 9:47 PM suggests I am female:
Genre: Informal
Female = 799
Male = 445
Difference = -354; 35.77%
Verdict: FEMALE
This simply isn't a reliably indicator.
Believe I am a man, believe I am a woman... I don't care either way.
Just don't try to justify it with an unreliable measurement.
Artemis at April 19, 2017 10:21 PM
Gail Says:
"Say, didn't this used to be a discussion about the United brouhaha?"
Yeah... these folks have an unhealthy obsession with nonsense and can never stay on topic unless it is about me... then they can go on for hours.
I am especially amused by the fact that these folks are so engrossed in a multi year long debate about who an internet stranger might be... but the odd one is the person they are all obsessed with.
If I was in their shoes I wouldn't care.
Artemis at April 19, 2017 10:28 PM
Munoz apologizes again.
At this point, he's basically hoarding responsibility. Shareholders must be tickled pinko. The Chicago Department of Aviation is probably cool with it, too.
Crid at April 19, 2017 11:33 PM
"Ambiguity and uncertainty seems to cause you a lot of discomfort."
If ambiguity and uncertainty are a discomfort for me, please explain why you, Crid, and Conan have spent years debating if I am a man or a woman?
Who cares?... Can't you live with a little ambiguity and uncertainty?
Why does this make you so very uncomfortable that this is even such a hot topic?"
It doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. None of us really care, because 99.9 percent of our lives is lived off the internet (or at least not at this web site).
It is bait. You're projecting here. Your Asperger brain has mistaken this teasing (again) for a serious line of discussion.....
Isab at April 20, 2017 12:07 AM
Isab Says:
"None of us really care"
For folks who don't care you spend an inordinate amount of your time and energy discussing this topic even in my absence.
Conan has written over 1000 words discussing this topic and similar ones regarding lack of personal details in this thread alone.
That is a substantial amount of effort for folks who don't care.
The evidence doesn't support what you are saying... but when has that stopped you from making unsubstantiated claims before?
"It is bait. You're projecting here."
Look Isab, what you are calling bait hasn't been particularly effective.
You imagine yourself as some grand puppeteer behind the scenes manipulating someone against their will.
Sorry to disappoint, but I enjoy making fun of you when you say stupid and irrational things.
I will point out though that once again you aren't exactly aligned with the other members of the troop.
Conan insisted earlier that I was the one hijacking threads... you on the other hand are claiming that I am simply a person with social cognitive impairments being manipulated like a fish on a hook.
You guys cannot have it both ways... either I am the perpetrator here or I am the manipulated victim... logically I cannot be both.
I do want to point out one last thing to you... I wouldn't go around bragging how you spend your time on the internet trying to manipulate and make fun of people who you suspect have cognitive impairments. That doesn't exactly paint you in a favorable light.
I on the other hand enjoy making fun of you because you are simply uneducated and irrational... other than that I think you are pretty average.
Artemis at April 20, 2017 2:01 AM
"You imagine yourself as some grand puppeteer behind the scenes manipulating someone against their will."
You are projecting again here. I barely control what I have for lunch tomorrow.
If you are looking for some parenting, you are going to have to find it out there in the real world.
Isab at April 20, 2017 2:10 AM
Isab,
For someone who spends 99.9% of their time off of the internet you sure responded to my post rather quickly when your last comment was 2 hours ago.
Me thinks though dost protest too much... you are hovering.
Artemis at April 20, 2017 2:13 AM
Doth.
Crid at April 20, 2017 2:37 AM
UA says will it will testify at house hearings no date set yet.
Crid at April 20, 2017 2:40 AM
Munoz is caught in a bind here, some of it of his own making.
His first instinct in this was to stand up for his employees, a laudable instinct, but one that led Munoz to blaming Dr. Dao, a bad PR move. Now he's walking that back, or trying to.
The problem for United is that all of this was done on United Flight 3411, not Republic Flight 3411. Not the Chicago Department of Aviation Flight 3411.
United took the stock hit, not Republic's holding company. United took the PR hit, not CDA or Republic.
Instead of explaining to the public that the flight was operated by someone else or that the goon squad was made up of Chicago municipal employees, Munoz went public saying United employees did nothing wrong, technically true since the people involved in this were a Republic flight crew, (probably) third-party contractor gate agents, and CDA security personnel.
United is not the only airline using regional carriers for short feeder flights and third-party contractors for ground agents. Airlines are complicated enterprises and running one has got to be akin to putting socks on an octopus.
The public sees this as a United flight, not a Republic flight. The plane and the crew are decked out in United Express livery. It says in small print on the nose of the plane who is operating the flight, but most people do not look or see that, like the fine print in contract. United tries to make the transition from United-operated flights to Republic-operated flights seamless.
So, United takes the PR hit. And Munoz was too shortsighted to see what a mess this was already when he stirred the pot and made it worse. This will be a PR nightmare studied in business schools for years, like the Tylenol case in reverse, what not to do.
Conan the Grammarian at April 20, 2017 4:20 AM
> Munoz was too shortsighted to
> see what a mess this was already
Verily. Hence the components of my End Game daydream.
Now, as a rule, all the proud businessmen in the world (outside of Silicon Valley) are full of shit... They're not very bright, and riding a wave of strength by the muscle of others. Munuz may in fact be a guy of considerable skill. But I think this nightmare shows that the enterprise has become too deeply tentacled, to coarsely subcontracted to run smoothly... Let alone non-violently, and let alone toward the production of good customer service.
And yet… Still feeling like not enough people are engaged with the irony of such violent suffering on an airliner which was nowhere near the heavens.
Non-ironic comment: It's a crazy time to be alive. I've seen a hundred stories like this in the past two years, and have literally wept when thinking of the wealth and safety that have swept our planet just in the short decades that I've been on it.
(I believe that I am, in a manner too complicated for explication in a single blog comment, personally responsible for this most glorious galaxy of miraculous outcomes.)
But just as one shooting in Saint Louis can inflame the polity —perhaps disproportionately— for months, a single horrific event can stun a nation with nearly two million people in the sky every single day.
Crid at April 20, 2017 7:16 AM
...And that's nearly two million people safely in the sky every single day.
Crid at April 20, 2017 7:17 AM
I been flying a lot lately, domestic, because of a thing. It was good to find this, which can occasionally locate first class seats at coach prices... The actual booking has to be handled manually, so to speak, but it's still useful.
It's a Google treat, and sometimes their funnest toys go away after they've had the development they want from them, so enjoy it while you can.
Crid at April 20, 2017 7:27 AM
Crid Says:
"Doth."
Yeah, I butchered the pseudo Shakespeare quote fairly well there. Oh well.
The point stands that the folks conversing here spend substantially longer than 0.1% of their day on the internet. As an outside guess I would say 10% at a minimum.
Artemis at April 20, 2017 7:37 AM
You aren't being clear.
Crid at April 20, 2017 7:51 AM
Leave a comment