Dr. Dao has a Criminal past
In the case of United Airlines’ treatment of Dr. Dao, an American pulmonologist, who was forcibly removed from a UAL flight, we have been reading stories that the doctor has a criminal past. The Washington Times has an article which describes in delicious detail the doctor’s wrong-doings from 2004. The do eventually admit (near the end of the story) that
While the report shines a light on Dr. Dao’s checkered medical career, it does not suggest that his past is in any way connected to Sunday’s incident.
No shit, Sherlock. To their credit, Washington Times coverage isn’t limited to Dr. Dao’s criminal history; they also have a sneery, snarky piece on who’s madder at what happened, the Chinese or the Vietnamese.
The proper response to discussions of Dr. Dao’s criminality — with respect to United’s behavior -- is “So what!?”
The only circumstance which might justify dragging a passenger off a plane is that he is resisting arrest. And the airline can’t have it both ways: Either he was removed because they were overbooked or because he was resisting arrest. But not both.
Over-booking: a necessary evil?
Maybe so. it certainly has been going on as long as I can remember. However, in the good old days before non-refundable fares, passengers could feel like they were getting a fair deal: the airline could overbook because passengers could cancel at the last minute. However, nowadays, with a majority of every flight comprising non-refundable passengers, what excuse does the airline have to overbook, while simultaneously requiring every passenger (except those who pay a hefty up-charge) to show up?
Over-booking and its false prioritization
Even if one accepts over-booking as a necessity, it does not in any way make the people who didn’t get on board more important than those who did. Both people paid for their tickets. There is no logic by which one properly-ticketed, paid passenger should be forcibly removed so another properly-ticketed, paid passenger can get on board instead.
The airlines have to accept responsibility for the mess they’ve created by their one-sided over-booking policy. Their only recourse — from the standpoint of human rights — is to ask for volunteers to leave the flight. If they don’t get enough volunteers, then perhaps they should examine the costs and benefits of over-booking.
If, as in this case, the people waiting to come aboard are needed airline staff and the flight cannot leave without them, then cancel the flight.
The lack of other options for a passenger who gives up a seat
If a passenger gives up his seat, that passenger is likely to be stuck for at least 24 hours before boarding another flight. Is getting a wad of cash enough of an incentive, especially knowing how few flights there are between many destinations and how full all those flights are?
Overbooking — once the passengers are onboard
The Financial Times discusses the practice of over-booking and notes that most occurrences happen at the gate — passengers are denied entrance to the plane, rather than being allowed on and then dragged off afterwards.
Aviation experts point to the fact that when overbooking occurs it usually happens before the plane is boarded, in contrast to the United case. In addition, United still had the option to raise its compensation offer to $1,350 — which could have resulted in some other volunteers — before removing the passenger against his will.
A last word — airline customer service
If passengers these days seem more belligerent — and possibly less likely to voluntarily leave a flight — it may be because airlines, by their execrable customer service, have made their customers into enemies. Flying domestically is a miserable experience and the airlines have made it so.