Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
If I was United Airlines, I'd be telling Mr Dao to GFH. There are Federal laws that cater for the repositioning of crew regardless of the 'contract of carriage' that if any of you 'he had a right to keep his seat' brigade bothered to read, you'd see that as a passenger you basically have no rights at all.
His behaviour was disgraceful, childish and embarrassing. And the US is a police state is it? Grow up, it's one of the most relaxed places I've been to despite all of the security challenges they've had to deal with over the past 15 years.
I suppose varied reactions to this news item stem from differing perspectives and expectations.
Some would suppose that a seated passenger is expecting that they may be removed and therefore be compliant if it happens.
Some may be expecting that at some point excepting obvious safety issues, the passenger is seated and therefore eligible to fly.
No doubt average US crew member expectations differ from the average customer.
The issue here is that there was no obvious safety issue, just the question of operational convenience of the carrier.
That such a debate should end up in a passenger in an unconscious state, bleeding with broken teeth is surely deeply unfortunate no matter what your expectation.
I think this case will help clarify the relative importance of the operational convenience of the carrier.
That clarity will surely improve the world slightly, not detract from it.