Airplane!
Intransigence
Nothing has changed with the three scummiest airlines, United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta, despite promises of reform.
Monday, July 17, 2023:
...passengers aboard a Delta Airlines jet (flight 555, bound for Atlanta) were forced to endure soaring cabin temperatures as they waited on a Las Vegas tarmac for three hours. After people aboard began falling victim, the flight was canceled, with multiple people evaluated by paramedics and two taken to a hospital.
You're telling me, after a century of commercial flight, (the first one was January 1, 1914), they still haven't established sensible protocols and fail-safes for delays?
And we expected reform, of course, after the United Airlines "dragging" incident of Dr. Dow.
The Strange Case of Dr. Dao
When something really does hit the fan at a corporation, particularly when the CEO or other high official is shamed or embarrassed, they clean house immediately. The same day, processes change, people are fired, staffers are told in no uncertain terms to clean up their act... None of this happened at United, and the staffers instead became more incompetent, petty and authoritarian.
Quick & Dirty SummaryDr. Dao/United Airlines incident
government and the airlines
explanation and suggested measures
We know it's a no-risk game for United to abuse its clients, because its routes are guaranteed, and it can... here we go again... count on bailouts.
Like car companies disdainful and disrespectful of their customers, knowing they are protected oligopolies, the same pattern is seen with these airline Bozos.
No Chair Man Dao
You know, there comes a time for every company, when it has to look at its priorities and decide: Is it in the airline business? Or, is it in the transportation business? Or, is it in the assault and battery business?
The Doctor Dao incident on United Airlines (UA), on April 9, 2017, when UA staff called security to remove a passenger from his seat to make space for dead-heading crew, stinks to high heaven.
The Tao of Dao
The incident reeks of lies and sketchy events, but clown-wrapped in sensationalism. There are some issues that beg to be answered.
- Why would Dao's lawyer ever accept Muñoz' apology, as he did, at a press conference soon after the event?
- How did the security crew get away with blatant lies contradicted by the video evidence?
- Why were obvious omissions in the "official reports" of airport security tolerated?
- The lawyer for Dao framed this almost as a crusade for justice for all travelers, yet didn't follow through — why not?
It's not in the interest of society to allow people to "settle." I don't know how it is even lawful (and it may not be). With a bit of money can anyone throw around a bribe, called a "settlement," and get off the hook? Can a corporation, for example, murder someone, but with a contrite apology and a big payout, so the family will "understand" and drop any prosecution?
In fact, the law has already tackled and addressed such questions, and in fact we've established "law" so it will step in to resist just this sort of thing as being against public interest, for obvious reasons.
So, time for a decent analysis of this odd Dao incident, that was resolved out of court.
Everyone was surprised when the case was settled so soon, that UA didn't want to drag it out, heh-heh.
What a bizarre scene. No one, even the incompetent "captain" intervened, even when airport thugs were dragging a stunned Dao down the aisle. That no passenger intervened speaks ill of the passengers as well. In an ideal world, one of them should have citizen's arrested the captain for gross dereliction of duty.
Muñoz, UA's chief executive, should have been fired, of course, and every employee involved, plus the Chicago thugs, and their bosses. The thugs should've been charged for aggravated assault and terrorism.
Any sensible organization would purge Muñoz, who comes off as an obtuse, vapid, buffoon. But not UA — he's probably just the type they want in there, the sociopathic type.
A point about Muñoz and the general state of CEOs these days: They want idiots, thugs and scumbags in upper management. Look at recent examples of CEOs — some of them ruin the company and march out with staggering payouts in the hundreds of millions! Stupid people are generally more brutal, or more easily swayed in that direction. And they are tasked with a brutal job: dehumanizing and brutalizing customers and staff alike. Who else but a sociopath or psychopath are you going to want in charge if you're going to purge many employees, or introduce rotten policies?
As government and big business becomes ever more joined at the hip, they want the public to be conditioned to obey. It's simple. We don't have to agonize over, "how can people and companies act like that?" while they pick our pockets and treat us like dirt.
Amusingly, if you check out the comments to blog reports of the UA incident, there are endless, absurd justifications for UA, even after United admitted guilt, and even now, after they've settled. These are the comment trolls and shills, mostly hired by, or with interests in, the corporation. They seek, not so much to support the airline (partly because any dummies still flying UA are so numb to reality, nothing will faze them), but to justify brutalization and terrorism by big corporations and big government and twist logic to make the corps and government look always in the right.
It's beyond tiresome to see these clucks and cucks, shills and lawyers, jabbering about how UA "had the right to remove Dao." No. UA started a controversy — a bidding war, if you will, when it started an auction, offering compensation, to find "volunteers" to vacate their seats. If Dao got confused on when the bargaining ended, that's hardly his fault... If he had, "just gotten off the plane," you can bet his compensation would be laughable or non-existent. These airlines are scum. The swine are decreasing your in-cabin space (note that this occurred right around the time that cramped seating was discovered to cause vein thrombosis — blood clots in peoples' legs).
They're revealing their hand, too, by having their paid shill flunkies go over the top on their criticism of Dao — and even others that were mistreated and brutalized. Like another man who came forward to tell how, they kicked him out of his first-class seat for someone "more important." The passenger was threatened with handcuffs if he didn't leave his seat for a "VIP" (and the plane wasn't even overbooked).
(Presumably, anyone can hire Internet trolls, including people with financial interest in a corporation, or governments. If you stood to lose a lot of money in stock value, you would consider using them to hopefully prop up the company, too.)
Early June, 2017, saw a report that a crazed UA attendant tried to rip a concert violinist's violin away from her when she was trying to carry it on board (as allowed by airline regulations).
Now what are people not seeing? Any changes from those "bastiches." Right after the Dao incident, there were yet more abuses that should have been easily handled before escalation. The woman with a stroller wrenched from her hand by a mincing little brute, the big bunny they froze to death(?!), and many others. And there was nonsense from the other airlines, too, arbitrarily kicking people off, or ignoring misconduct.
Some of the many UA offenses:
- facing a $435,000 FAA fine for flying a potentially unsafe plane 23 times
- telling a passenger to "pee in a cup," when they wouldn't let her use the lavatory
- deliberately breaking a musician's checked guitar — he even wrote a song about it, United Breaks Guitars, that got quite a following
- locking a baggage handler for an hour and a half flight in the plane's belly
- separating families and seating young children far from their parents
- being unaware of fuel spills, having to turn back when informed of such, by a passenger who saw the leak from a wing
- employing psycho pilots like the one that went nuts on a plane, lecturing passengers in a rant about politics and her divorce, after showing up, out of uniform, in street clothes
- shoving a 71-year-old man on his ass, for protesting abuses UA staff were pulling on him
- making a disabled man crawl up the jetway off the plane — guess they didn't want Delta, that did the same thing five years before, to show them up!
One of those is a strike against the manufacturers: they've been building planes for over 100 years, but they can't put a sensor in the overflow tube to inform of fuel expulsions?
And what about the ground crew — they can't calculate the proper amount of fuel to add, considering the ambient temperature, to avoid fuel spills? It's laughable.
The entire staff of UA needs purged. Their institutionalized, ingrained behavior is not going to change.
The comment trolls don't actually have to troll in support of the airline, though: It doesn't matter. UA and AA are basically part of the government. There are guaranteed profits, and if they go under, they'll be treated to a big "bailout."
Part of the "communization" of the West involves extensive double-speak. Ever since they started this talk about how businesses act like "teams," they've become ever less like "teams," and infinitely more dictatorial, handing down decrees "from above." When they say that no staffer on the plane is able to exercise judgment or common sense, that's true. The abuse has been mandated from the executive suite.
A note: Muñoz did not actually apologize, and still hasn't, despite his so-called "public apology." He first accused and slandered Dr. Dao; second, praised his own scummy "team;" then, finally, about-faced, pandering to the media and public with a mealy mouthed mea culpa, in hopes of defusing a bad scene.
The word, "apologize," needs to be abolished. No one seems to understand it. An apology should be genuine contriteness, involving corresponding action, designed to counter any possible repeat of the situation, and to mitigate harm. What we today call "apology," is a child's remedy, and has no place in an adult world.
I would say that the actions on both sides ring as odd. There's no reason Demetrio (Dao's lawyer) should've accepted Muñoz' "apology" on Dao's behalf.
Nor do I know why Muñoz "apologized" at all. He might as well have played out his hand, stuck to his guns, and kept blaming the victim, because the damage was already done. Then, after a "full investigation," done his about-face and blamed the plane crew for not informing him of the facts, then fired the pilot and crew, and said, "Of course, in light of this serious matter, United and I are assuming full responsibility..." You see how much easier that would have gone? Even just a few select firings or demotions may have done the trick.
The firings would save face for the company, even if it looked like Muñoz was covering his ass, which he would be, but at least he would have had plausible deniability. It would be a sensible tactic to help recover from the problem.
But the failure to handle the incident properly makes you wonder: Is it possible to be that stupid? For a CEO of a major global company? (Something we are asking more and more these days.) It's something that calls the whole incident into question.
Whatever the truth, we do know that, nothing has changed at that hell-hole.
The United Airlines/Dao Settlement
We've seen estimates ranging from a mere five or six figures, by web punters, to more serious estimates, from about $1 million up to $140 million. One site purports to be more analytical, and claims a settlement in the range of $5-15 million. An amount of $40-50 million seems plausible, but even the $140 million claim seems possible. Remember, the lawyers would take 30-40%, and taxes would take, maybe 40% on the taxable portion.
(Tax liability will be determined by the wording of the settlement. Compensatory damages — his medical care and suffering — are not generally taxable. Punitive/exemplary damages generally are taxable.)
Out of curiosity, we can still approximate his settlement in a few ways:
Start by looking at Dao's expenses from the assault, add any losses he may have incurred, plus add anticipated "compensatory damages" that they would seek in a trial. Those would factor into the consideration of a settlement whether or not they did proceed to court.
On the plantiff's side, they'll say that all of Dao's claimed injuries could easily cost a million a year for life, for treatment. Then they'll pull out the actuarial charts, and say, "Well, average life expectancy in the U.S. is 79 years, but Dao took a hell of a beating and survived — so he seems in pretty good health — give him 25 years. He's possibly lost his ability to practice medicine due to the trauma, or perhaps due to the fact his patients might shy away after the public spectacle. Add another 10 million for ten years' potential lost earnings. That's thirty-five million. Now add the fact that he was assaulted, battered and terrorized. Say five million tacked on for that." (And what the Chicago "authority" did was pure terrorism. There's a federal law regarding "terroristic threats.")
For punitive damages, you might see mention of triple the compensatory damages, something Dao's lawyer is going to speculate on, with the UA attorneys. That brings us up to $160 million, a number they might forward just to put a chill into the suits at UA.
This would be a possible starting point, that UA would cautiously balk at. Still, even if they cut to a quarter of that, we're well into eight figures, and this doesn't even account for the humiliation of the dragging and so forth. The defense would have their numbers to counter with — relatively low numbers — but they'd have to be careful, fearing the lawyer's successful reputation and the fact that the public opinion was generally so strongly against UA. They'd counter with an offer of around $10 million.
We can look at past settlements of similar cases for a ballpark figure. Of course, nothing prior has garnered this type of publicity, so that's a tough one.
With no obvious similar cases to Dr. Dao's, it's tough to use this method, but if Dao is the poker player they say he is, you know he held out for a good payday. Here's the thing: Things like concussion are tricky — who's to know what their effect may be? Even if Dao is exaggerating his injury claims, he was still dropped onto an armrest and onto the floor. Again, there's no way to assess the effects from that, which may not surface until later, which is why he'd be foolish to settle for less than $10 million.
Ashley Alford got $95 million from Aaron's Rents Inc. in a 2008 sexual harassment suit against a St. Louis Aaron's, so there's precedent for large payouts — and that's quite a payout at almost nine figures! But then, after appeals and such, her award was reduced to $6 million! Still, not chicken feed, but it shows why people like to settle out of court and avoid such travails as having your hard-won settlement knocked out from under you.
We could look at UA's financial statements for the period, then do some deduction from that. In the end, the settlement can't stay secret. UA (actually, United-Continental if you want to get technical), is publicly listed, so it should come out in the financials, if only indirectly. At least a forensic accountant would be able to come up with something.
We can use general approximation: Six figures is too low. The Internet comment damage control squad is out there saying he may have gotten up to a million. Ha! Even seven figures, in the millions, is also too low, judging from the speed with the settlement was reached and because, to repeat, Dao can't know if future health issues will crop up. Now, nine figures would buy a new plane or planes — new Airbuses list from about 70 million to 415 million USD. Put it this way: you can see why nine figures is unlikely. So, again, an eight figure settlement seems the most probable.
No doubt, the amount that UA saves in legal fees for not having to defend this case will have been considered when arriving at an amount. According to one survey and study, average total outside litigation cost per major company was nearly $115 million in 2008! Got to imagine a high-profile case like Dao's would double that if it went to court.
With all of the praise the lawyer heaped on UA, we know he has to kiss its arse as part of settlement, and he was seemingly so pleased to do so, you know it's a good haul he brought in. Probably in the neighborhood of $10-$40 million.
Humor
There is a video of Muñoz, wearing a yellow safety vest, lecturing staff, in a clip accompanying a news report. Though most staff are trying to be attentive, one of the employees in the background rolls his eyes and looks supremely bored. You have to marvel at the arrogance for any CEO, to come in from a different industry and start giving lectures. How much worse when this blathering boob comes to town to "share his knowledge?" But it fits with the intimidation tactic to assert, "who's the boss." In a real company, interested in constant improvement, each employee of the company would lecture him, one a day, sharing his or her experiences and suggestions. In this system, it would never realistically happen.
What hypocritical nonsense: This talk of "congressional oversight of the airlines," when it, Congress, contributed to the problem, in most cases creating it, such as with the TSA it established, and the "enhanced powers" it "granted" to airline personnel. What do the statistics show? 77% of U.S. domestic air routes are a monopoly, no competition, according to www.anna.aero. That doesn't happen without government collusion. That is, government created this problem itself, now is posturing and posing like the big hero.
Regarding American Law
It only is logical that, because U.S. airlines are incorporated by the U.S. government, they are under all the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. That means their passengers retain all their rights guaranteed by the Constitution, have the right to seek redress of grievances, and basically the paying passenger is on equal footing with the airline corporation. I don't think you'd ever get litigation for this into a court, but the reasoning is sound. The U.S. government can't grant anything it doesn't have the power to do itself.
Come Fly with Me, Let's Fly, Let's Fly Away
Was David Dao beaten in the jetway, or afterwards?
Was the effect on UA's value, as reflected in the decline in its stock price, permanent?
One police report made by a security staffer that "re-accomodated" Doa says that the good doctor "pushed by" the security goons. So we're to believe he manhandled at least three physically capable thugs.
Then one clownish goon said Dao clung to a "pole" on the airplane. What airplanes have poles? A stripper pole? On the airplane? What kind of flight was this?
Legal Trickery: Obfuscation, Concealment, Stirring the Pot
The so-called legal system thrives on the artifice of lawyers, who concoct:
- arguments so complex, they twist the mind
- endless lies and nonsense, instead of truth and simplification of issues
- strategies that make it so you "need a lawyer," not to help you, but as translator for this nonsense
If the legal system is not comprehensible with a few minutes of simple explanation to reasonably intelligent persons, it's not a legal system.
Talking Points
The narrative refers to Dao's impertinence, "disobeying a direct order," and "failing his obligation to follow the contract," and "failing to obey the police," incorrectly. UA itself refutes those points.
Then there's the claim that Dao, bloodied and disoriented, after trotting back on the plane, was saying, "Just kill me." Those fools couldn't "report" the spittle dribbling down their chins! He was actually saying, "They kill me," or "They're (trying to) kill me..."
Also, Dao wasn't necessarily, "shrieking and crying," like shills babble. He was likely a victim of the "pain compliance," that the Chicago thugs are taught and were probably using on him, in the process of pulling him from his seat, wrenching his wrist or fingers.
Then there's Muñoz' incompetence, just one of many factors that makes this incident weird.
Then, there's the senseless dragging of Dao, not even picking him up. They could have at least lifted him to his feet and walked him out — you know those lazy bastiches aren't going to do anything too strenuous, if at all possible — it's easier to walk someone out than drag him. It almost looks as though they were trying to make the whole thing as absurd as they could. The goons apparently roughed him up more than we've seen on video, as well! Now, if UA personnel could call the goons in, they could also call them down, when they saw them getting abusive, but didn't.
And where was his wife in all this? We are told there was a wife. She just disappeared from the scene, without a trace? And without a mention in any report, or in any "press conferences" afterwards?
And, of course, Dao got back on the plane! Why is that account missing even from the individual reports on the attack? One thug's report stated Dao "somehow" got away? "Somehow" is not a "report." Reports are meant to reveal details.
Subtlety isn't these thugs "forte," yet, we are to believe that their egos permitted them to be bested by a relatively small, concussed, diabetic senior citizen?
Even the name of the central character in all this, "Dao," and his oddball past, are questionable. Even his reported age, 69. Look at the letters: DAO, which rearrange to "D.O.A.," or "A O.D.," (O.D., of course, being an abbreviation for "overdose," "D.O.A.," for "Dead on Arrival").
Applying Some Logic
Here's a rule that is very powerful: If some part of the story is impossible, you must discard it — the entire story — as tainted. Then you regroup and search for the actual truth.
It's dubious that "security" would allow anyone, including Dao, to "escape" and re-board the plane, unless, perhaps, they were starting to have second thoughts about what they had done, as the adrenaline wore off. It would seem, though, they wouldn't want to risk having to explain to their boss how the elderly, diabetic Dao overwhelmed them and broke away.
Lies and More Lies
We are told that, for security, any passenger has to be on the plane with his baggage — the baggage can't be on the plane unless the passenger is, as well. That means they would have to sort through all of the bumped passengers' luggage in the belly of the plane. How does that "save time," and get the "crucial UA employees to their destination ASAP?" We've also been told that airlines have to pay big fines if they don't get out on time, but airlines' behavior belies that.
Giant Rabbit
It wouldn't be too far out to say it looks like UA, and AA as well, what with their offenses, could be players in schemes to run scams and tests/trials on the public. Nothing seems too far-fetched these days.
Disappointments
It is sad that the rent-a-cops who dragged Dao are not going to go up on charges.
They dragged Dao out of the plane, then cleaned up the blood, then took off, though two hours late. Two hours late! When the catalyst in the first place was some "urgent need" to transport crew.
Of course, owing that it was a crime scene, that plane should have stayed put. They shouldn't have been allowed to destroy evidence. Where were the police to do an investigation? The whole "investigation" was passengers' cell phone recordings?
UA, along with its cronies, still does not get it. Nothing has been learned: Delta's first response to a minor disagreement was to threaten some passengers, with jail, and sending their kids to CPS. "Federal Crime!" shrieked one attendant. Supposedly, a father tried to "smuggle" his infant son onto a flight, using the ticket he'd bought for another son. That is, he put an older son on a different flight, and apparently forgot to update the ticket he'd already bought to conform to the change.
At first, it looked like both sides were at fault in this incident, but there was still the question as to why they didn't offer to change the original ticket. Shouldn't that have been handled at check-in? What exactly is the point of check-in, anyway, if not for things like that?
As it turns out, the guy, Brian Schear, already had approval from the gate, on this April 23 flight. They issued boarding passes and the family got on board. That was, or should have marked, the end of it.
Of course, on board, the attendant starts with the badgering approach, then, when he doesn't jump when she says jump, tells him, "Now you've gone too far!" A glorified housekeeper, itching to wield her mock authority, fueled by excess testosterone due to hormone imbalance, and a mental issue of authoritarianism.
Also got to love all these legal experts "commenting," getting on the bandwagon with their legal conclusions and determinations. They don't know, or try to find out, the full facts of what happened. Or they simply ignore them, completely oblivious to the fact the check-in desk had already approved the family to board. So how was there any controversy at all?
Unfortunately, it seems Schear didn't do what needed to be done to counter future problems of this nature. He called Delta, to try to get "closure," or a sense of well-being. He didn't want confrontation. How heartwarming.
The only thing he could do that makes any sense is to raise a stink, not "take the high road," like a chump. Maybe, as with Dao, he couldn't make things better for the majority, but at least he could cash in, and set an example for others to do the same.
In Dao's case, there was a lot of BS thrown around, about how abusive the airlines and security were, and how "something had to be done," and it all fizzled out. No one was punished, when several should have been in jail. No one does the right thing. A corporation "takes responsibility" for the assault committed by the security detail, because there will be no repercussions for any of the perps that way.
- Flight staff are afraid to have people not "respect their authoritah," based on the spurious excuse that, "People won't pay attention to me when I'm giving life-saving instructions." But in some "inadvertent landing," they aren't going to be a talented and organized "rescue force," they'll be as disoriented and panicky as anyone else. Anyway, think about it: If a crisis happens, doesn't that prove the crew is incompetent? What they should be fostering is a cooperative environment, if only to make their own jobs easier. To give these types any authority always results in heartbreak and disaster. There's no reason for it, but, sadly, no one is speaking against it.
- People still seem to be fooled by UA's outrageous claim that their jets are "private property." In fact, I was triggered enough to "fight back" against this...
Triggered
I was creeped out by a blog article, authored by a fellow claiming to be a law student. His blog looks more like a place for a hustler to polish his rhetoric. He claims that it's a place to "learn law," and I don't know how he gets away with that claim, if he's just a student. It's also hard to understand how a "student" can devote so much time — and blogs are very time consuming — to his professionally-styled blog, plus his crusading.
It points, also, to a big problem online where no one knows who is shill, propagandist or government agent, or is just a believer in his or her own BS.
Ostensibly, he's a "legal justice warrior," who fights against abuses by TSA, but his words and deeds don't meet in the middle, somehow. Instead, he demonstrates the shady weasel tactics lawyers learn in school.
One thing that got me steamed was his subtle reinforcement of the discredited notion that airline planes are "private property." You'd think someone who was so concerned about passenger rights would know better.
There is an ongoing psyop to make people want to give up their rights, with specious arguments and contrived logic. The excuse for "speeding tickets" is a good example. Everyone thinks they're, perhaps not good, but "necessary." Of course that's nonsense. Places with no speed limits have been found to have fewer accidents. A U.S. sheriff, Sheriff Mack, says speed is a factor in only in a small percentage of cases, and it's lane changes that are the biggest problem.
But they are pushing this idea of "private property" now, trying to apply it where it does not apply. Because everyone is defensive of their own private property, it's an easy sell. Your car may be your own private property, but if you start to use it as a taxi, you, clearly, give up some of your private property rights to it. That's not hard to understand. As a place of business, a taxi comes under completely different regulations. But big business would love to sucker you into thinking their semi-public offerings are somehow private, for their convenience. I guess it's just smart business, in a way.
The thing that creeped me out then, is that this CLB (Creepy Little Bastich) is errand-boy for this message.
Lawyers have a task, in their practices, to set up "controversy," and come up with "arguments." Doesn't matter what the argument is. This isn't generally a valuable service to the world. What it really is, is "muddying the waters."
And many people fall for the trap. "Justice was served," goes the line, as long as an excuse was made, regardless of any injustice. And either side can argue anything.
Anyway, in his assessment of the Dao incident, this "legal blogger" said that this was a case of UA, "granting license," (permission from an authority), and that UA was practicing the "efficient breach theory" of law, which basically says that companies routinely can and should breach their contracts if it's to their financial benefit!
...Contract law, on the other hand, generally allows any party to breach their contract duties at any time, under penalty of having to pay damages to the non-breaching party...
That's not "law." "Efficient breach theory" is, clearly enough, not even much of a theory, but an exploit. And not much of an exploit, either, because it merely attempts to legitimize a dark side of human nature — weasel behavior. Yeah, most everyone wants to take advantage, sometimes even benefit at others' expense, if it means "coming out ahead." That doesn't mean it's enshrined in law. So I wrote a comment to his blog, that he neglected to publish, of course:
This is not a situation of granting "license..." United Airlines is a common carrier engaged in offering a service for hire. No one... strays from the fact that this is a contract situation. There is nothing "illegal" about hiring/contracting someone to transport you from place to place that would require a "competent authority" to grant leave (license)...
There would be no purpose for contracts at all if law, "generally allows any party to breach their contract duties at any time," as you indicate... Contracts are to ensure performance. Start playing games like that, you could get yourself up for criminal charges — fraud for one — as well as civil penalties.
...you are saying the heart surgeon who gets bored, can up and leave his patient's chest gaping while he goes out for a round of golf? Or United Air might toss a passenger out at 30,000 feet, because they decide the guy is "trespassing", and they have a spare parachute in the locker. "Trespass" does not and cannot apply here. These planes are not "private property." They are a semi-public place of business, much like a department store is not strictly "private property," but semi-public. "Just anyone" can walk into the store and look around, and airline ticket sales are to the general public.
You can't just put "anything you want," into a contract, and have a valid contract. A contract has to be, not just legal, but conscionable. For example, a part of a contract that says, "I'll give you some money, and you can do whatever you want," is not enforceable.
There is a question that remains unanswered, but should have been one of the first points of discussion. How did Dao manage to make his way back on board the plane? It calls into question whether this is a staged event of some kind, or some kind of social experiment. The three young guards who “re-accommodated” Dr. Dao were not police, as revealed in a Chicago hearing over this issue, but a sort of security patrol that was supposed to have the “Police” call-outs removed from their clothing, months ago.
That isn’t a frivolous speculation. People have to step back to really consider the issue. There is no way that those three physically capable cretins just allowed Dao to mosey his way back along the jetway, then proceed, unhindered, deep into the plane. It’s an absurdity. Are we to suppose he overpowered them? Perhaps with a tricky form of “Vietnam Kung-fu,” performed with the prowess of Chuck Norris in a ’70s Chop Suey movie that left them cowed and broken under his vengeful fury.
No one in authority would have let him back on the freakin’ plane! In fact, anyone with some authority and common sense, would have immediately hustled him off for treatment for his injuries, while trying to hide him from any onlookers.
Really odd, that he didn't print my comments, when he did print a different writer's email, and it insulted him rather rudely. I guess I must have been on point, at least.
This rather shocked me, when I suddenly realized how hard it is to trust anyone on the web. He represents as a "just folks" type, yet seems to be part of this vast majority that have a hidden agenda. I always liked to think of the web as allowing for the average person to have a voice, but independent opinions are really swamped by yet another vast scheme of control, looks like.
So, if that's what we're teaching our lawyers now, the system is really broken. "I don't want to bother with this contract, so I'll just 'efficiently breach' it. After all, it'll cost me more in time and inconvenience if I fulfill the contract."
Of course, a lawyer's trick is to forward arguments that are legally and/or morally absurd, but so incomprehensible or idiotic that it's a struggle to fight them, to wear out his adversary. So thanks anyway to the blogger for providing a nice example to showcase a problem of our legal system.
Don't just speed-read through or gloss over that, it may be the most important point of this article. To repeat, a lawyer's trick is to forward arguments that are legally and/or morally absurd, but so incomprehensible or idiotic that it's a struggle to fight them, to wear out his adversary.
It's an example of how society is stepping away from morals and absolutes. One guy might go in to court with my argument, another might go in trying to float the "efficient breach theory." It doesn't matter what the argument is, as long as there's a "controversy" set up.
And the judge might decide in whatever manner he chooses. Often, there's no justice, it's a farce. People who resist moral relativism and insist on absolutes are scorned and hated in this dysfunctional system. It's a cash bleed scheme, with only connected corporations, government, courts and lawyers benefiting.
Why Something Like This?
There has always been a method to the madness.
One commenter made an excellent point: With their "system" in place on the airlines, it allows them to take anyone they wish off a flight, that doesn't fall into their, "agenda of compliance."
There is a real possibility they are trying to make flying as miserable as possible, part of an agenda of control, in this case, of people's patterns of movement. It's a typical policy for totalitarian systems. You've heard all about China and North Korea and the Soviet bloc and their internal passports and restricted movement, of course, and that is something they're moving towards here. No need to dispute it, you merely have to examine the trend from past to present.
- They want disruption, and for the "little people" to not fly, or even travel outside their communities.
- They want control over whom they permit to fly.
- Events like this are good for practice/training in "enforcement techniques."
As part and parcel of this ongoing agenda, they doctor the news and even "grass roots" sources, like small web sites. But there is a telltale: The lies and inconsistencies, which are usually pretty obvious.
As CEO, What Would I Have Done?
Immediately upon assuming the CEO position, I would have reviewed all the bad airline policies at all the airlines, not just UA, and taken the steps to stop any more idiocy from happening at my own company. Pretty simple start.
I would have eliminated re-selling seats, and brought back good old standby. I'm sure that with modern methods, "standby" could be made more effective and practical.
That's the smoking gun right there: They would have done just that — implemented a sophisticated standby system and eliminated the ridiculous system they have now — unless they wanted a dysfunctional system that allows them license to do whatever they want.
Back in the CEO seat, I would also have discontinued the use of BS language. Like "our team," and other absurdities. There's no "team work," those airline staffers are ruled from the top with an iron hand.
Then I would have quietly introduced real reforms that let them use some common sense (and quietly gotten rid of the staff that have none).
That they didn't make even these elementary, simple improvements shows that there is no motivation to even bother, and that dysfunction is all part of the plan.
There are some good ones, but the bad airlines are a real train wreck these days. Is that mixing my metaphors?
Update
In a predictable and nauseating turn of events, Muñoz was promoted to executive chairman of the board at UA, from May 2020.
Comments