GUWonder

I've never been on a flight when it's been destroyed or had the airframe seriously damaged in an attack, and I doubt I am alone in that. And yet enough people feel vulnerable on flights that we have a huge, expensive dog and pony show going on in the name of safety/security at airports across the country which keeps getting worse and worse. The post-9/11 airline and other airport-assigned employee power-tripping has left customers feeling vulnerable when dealing with airline employees and the TSA. And the UA Dao incident is yet another thing that makes some passengers and others feel vulnerable in some way or another when traveling. While some feelings of vulnerability are anything but entirely rational and the actions taken as a result of such feelings may be questionable -- even literally ridiculous -- it doesn't mean the feelings of vulnerability don't exist and haven't grown worse for passengers. The UA Dao incident has increased some sense of vulnerability and is a part of the picture about why UA is under pressure in some ways due to the Dao incident.

gold23

I have, twice. In both instances- once CO and once UA- I was extremely happy with how it was handled. On the first, there was a man talking gibberish (there were people around me saying he was speaking Arabic, but it was gibberish) and saying how he was certain the plane was crashing. The FA asked how he could be certain, he looked at her straight in the eye and said "Trust me on this one." He was removed, we deplaned, and boarded about 45 minutes later. There was no security entering the plane. We had closed the door, the FA made an announcement that we would need to deplane (no reason), and police met the man at the door. This was at EWR. He was not put in handcuffs, but led away. 2004 or 2005.

The other was a man unhappy with his seat. He wanted to be in F, was in the middle a few rows back in Y, and physically attempted to pour himself drinks from the galley during boarding. He was warned, he sat back down, and when we were taxiing he got up, stood in the aisle, and began talking with his wife a few rows back. Pilot stopped the taxi after being called by FA, made an announcement that we couldn't leave until everyone sat down, and the man sat down in the aisle. FA called in to the cockpit, we went back to the gate, and police DID board the aircraft. He physically threatened one of them, they both warned him he was threatening a law enforcement officer (they were armed, so I assume they were actual police), and he got up. Cuffed in the plane.

Both times I was quite comfortable with how it was handled....

I feel perfectly safe on flights.

halls120

So do I. And I'm not afraid for my security because of something that happened in 2001 like some people are.

leungy18

Exactly.

When I mention rude airport employees and unreasonable guidelines to a non-FF, I sometimes get a response something along the lines of "but 9/11!" or "rules exist for a reason!"

Over the past week, I've had a few non-FFs try and lecture me as to how Dao was rightfully removed as pax who simply "didn't follow rules". Their reasoning: "but 9/11!"

I told them that they didn't care about flying and overbooking policies, just that their political ideologies required unquestioning obedience to authority, and Dao's actions were contrary to that philosophy.

The public seems to have tacitly accepted the irrational fear and anxiety that comes with flying in the U.S.

shortkidd

Just to keep it real. The terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were rule followers. They didn't want their actions to be noticed by anyone and to just fly under the radar.

Ever since that date the airlines take rights and privileges from customers all in the name of "security". Well finally, someone has said no more and I congratulate him. It's just too bad he had to get beat up in the process.

Boiler84

Perhaps your friends' ideology is unquestioned obedience to authority, perhaps not. Perhaps it's more like mine, and is along the lines of "there is a time and a place to challenge authority, and that time / place typically is NOT at the point of initial interaction." Doing so is likely to cause escalation. Obey first, or suffer the consequences of whatever that escalation is. There will be opportunities to challenge later. In Dao's case, that challenge could have come as early as when he is at the jet bridge talking with GAs and authorities. At that point, he has options that could still get him to Louisville on Monday AM. Once he escalates on the plane, many of his options - especially ones that are likely to result in him being in Louisville on Monday AM - have pretty much evaporated. If being in Louisville Monday AM was the driver for his resistance, his method of resisting virtually guaranteed that he would not be there. He's either lacking in common sense, or had other motivations for doing what he did.

Take another case of someone acting contrary to "unquestioned obedience to authority." Say I'm driving to work for an urgent meeting. Highways are clear - no traffic. I'm in a hurry, so I'm going 80 in a 65. Police officer tries to pull me over. I decide that my meeting is more important than the state's speeding ticket revenue, so I ignore the police officer and keep going. The police officer is very unlikely to decide that where ever I'm going must be more important than obeying the laws and to therefore let me go. Instead, he'll escalate, and I'll almost certainly not make it to my meeting. On the other hand, if I had chosen to follow "unquestioning obedience to authority" and pull over, I have a pretty good chance of still making it. And I have an opportunity to plead my case to the officer. May even get off with a warning. Probably not likely in the above scenario, but I have had cases where I have gotten a warning after talking with the police officer.

Dao's actions had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, or any changes to rights, privileges or security that resulted from that day's events. Making any such link - explicitly or implicitly - is insulting to the victims of that day's events.

DeweyCheathem

Well, I suspect he is going to be very well compensated for that beating.

STS-134

But the whole idea that airline crews should get to act as authoritarian dictatorships aboard planes seems to have come out of 9/11. Where disobeying or even questioning an order from a crew member brands you as a security risk. If anyone really thinks about what terrorists are likely to do, it's the complete opposite, at least up until they point that they start attacking.

Last month, a HA captain diverted a LAS-HNL flight to LAX, landed, and delayed everyone on the plane by 4 hours, because a 66 year old man was cranky because he felt cold and didn't want to pay $12 for a blanket. Seriously? How the hell is that a security risk? He apparently said he wanted to "take someone behind the woodshed", probably in the same manner I tell my brother that I'm going to "kill him" for <insert something here that has greatly annoyed me>. Technically it's a threat, but anyone following the situation would know that I have no intention of actually following through on it. It's just a verbal rant to let off steam.

On ships, the Captain is also responsible for the safety of everyone aboard, passengers and crew alike, but we don't see as many reports of cruise ships diverting to the nearest port so that they can offload a passenger who was "disobeying crew members". Why?

FYI: in the old days, before passports were required for entry to the US at the Mexican border, long before I was born, my grandfather apparently gained re-entry to the US by arguing with the border guard. Why? Border guard figured that anyone actually arguing with him actually had a legit reason to be in the US, because people trying to cross illegally do not want to draw attention to themselves. I think the argument was simply over how long he had to wait to get to the front of the line . Same thing applies here. Terrorists aren't going to want to draw attention to themselves. Therefore, anyone who's arguing with the flight crew is probably not a terrorist.

leungy18

The voice of reason.

9/11 has given airline employees and security personnel carte blanche to abuse pax. I don't see how you can dispute that.

What could Dao have done if he left the plane and negotiated with UA on the jet bridge? UA could've said, "screw you, you're not flying", and the only thing Dao could start is legal action. Legal action is difficult if you're a little guy going against a large corporation.

Now Dao is going to be very well compensated for UA's numerous failings. Good for him!

halls120

Agree completely. That we overreacted at the national level to 9/11 was bad enough - watching how it has infiltrated and remained in civil society is both ridiculous and sad. That a dispute over a blanket in flight results in the flight being diverted is simply absurd.

LondonElite

Indeed, and a convicted felon should know this all the more.

LarryJ

What would he do if the flight was cancelled for maintenance, ATC, or weather? Would his options be any different than if he couldn't fly on the scheduled flight because of an IDB?

Manospeed

I never have felt unsafe flying United Airlines in my 8+ years of flying business with them. You have failed to specify why specifically you do not feel 'safe' aside from referring to the Dao incident, which has absolutely nothing to do with flight safety.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I read the thread title, and I'm not even going to bother reading many pages of discussion. I'm simply going to answer "No." I don't feel unsafe or vulnerable on a United flight.

Manospeed

I argued that same exact point. Why would anyone who supposedly HAS to (absolutely) be at their office on Monday morning take a chance/risk flying the very last scheduled flight of the day for their destination when they have absolutely no idea or control as to whether their flight gets cancelled due to mechanical or weather related issue.

In my opinion the "I'm a doctor, I HAVE to be in my office the next day" was simply used as an excuse to not deplane so UA would then be forced to inconvenience someone else (besides him).

A 69 year old professional that cannot miss their work the next morning under any circumstances does not create a scene on the plane. Instead, they would deplane and take a rental car to their destination. The drive was a little over 4 hours.