United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight

Re:United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controvers... by Karunamon on Saturday April 22, 2017 @01:04PM (#14173455)

Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect, the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became necessary.

The fact that there is an "authorized limit" is squarely on United. Start offering cash money to give up your seat, rather that near-worthless vouchers, as they are authorized and supposed to per FAA regs, and eventually, I guaran-freaking-tee you will find takers.

60% United, 40% hired security goons. United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controvers... by toufka on Saturday April 22, 2017 @01:08PM (#14173482)

>United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place.

Yep. And that actually yet further shifts the blame towards United even from your split. If you call in security goons, you can't get mad when they act like security goons. Just because United didn't bust the guy's lip doesn't mean they couldn't reasonably foresee that happening once they picked up their telephone to call in security.

[ Parent | on HN ]