Reddit just wiped the video of a doctor being dragged from United Airlines plane. It was sitting at the number one spot and the company didn't like it...

868  2017-04-10 by [deleted]

[deleted]

217 comments

Just further proof Reddit is controlled by it's advertisers. That heartbreaking video was the top of the front page and gave United Airlines a bad name. They needed it gone.

And nobody has a mirror readily available?

Where's the internet I know and love!?

Servers were all fucked up on friday. Right now it's "redditor restores photo, everyone gets gold". I have no proof, but that screams "shit is falling apart because we have all this content to store, but no one uses the site BC spez so let's make buying gold the cool thing to to do".

This happened to me when my airline video went viral and to #1 on the front page. American Airlines flight attendants were caught mistreating a passenger who did nothing wrong.

Made it to #1 here then Reddit nuked it citing, of all things, YouTube copyright! For MY video! Ha ha.

Yeah Reddit has been compromised for some time now...

Remember this is what killed Digg. They started letting sponsored content hit the front page over normal submissions by users.

I just love the knee-jerk reaction of calling 'conspiracy' every time someone's front page doesn't look the way they think it should. Just because you can't see it on your front page any longer doesn't mean reddit censored the article. My front page has two articles linking to the video, two more articles with separate discussions about overbooking, plus this post... and all of those articles are hours older than your post. If there was such a conspiracy to remove the discussion about the airline, don't you think ALL of the articles would have been squashed?

Yeah I'm confused, I'm still seeing a few posts about it...

Paid mods and shill accounts run this site now

They have for longer than we know, I think

that applies to r/conspiracy as well.

after the initial outcry that they were censoring posts, the creator of r/videos made r/PoliticalVideo. r/videos used to link to r/politicalvideo, but not anymore.

r/videos was bought off a long time ago.

You guys are so paranoid! The video clearly violated Rule #4: No Videos of United Security Brutality or Harassment.

/s

Remove /s, you become an echo chamber of confusion.

I'm already confused. Videos had a rule before this video was posted, and they removed it because it breaks the rule.

Where am I going wrong here?

Yeah same, but something about rules and free speech in general gets a few people angry then all of a sudden all of reddit is up in arms about their rights.

So I'm not objectifying an opinion, just soaking in and analyzing what's happening today, and this video from United Airlines is pretty interesting.

Don't all we know is police were asked to escort him off? Is there not much more of a story line? Or an interview from the man himself?

We're in the same boat. It's strange to me that lots of reddit calls for "conspiracy!" from the get go, even though it clearly does violate the subs rules. I know as a mod myself (in a far less popular sub), sometimes you remove the highest upvoted things because they don't fit the sub or go against the rules. So I'm confused a lot by that point being made in how it's a conspiracy.

But, from what I can gather, is that this man was beat up because of United's fuckup of overbooking. United asked people to volunteer, nobody did, so they had a computer "select" who to take off. This man was the 3rd of 4, and didn't go so easily. So they kicked his ass and dragged him off the plane. He somehow got back on, received medical attention on the plane, and the plane went back into the gate to "tidy up".

We're in the same boat as far as I can tell, I have no clue what really happened. But all this "censorship censorship!" hoopla seems somewhat misguided at this point, especially if it was removed for breaking a sub rule.

Remember this is what killed Digg. They started letting sponsored content hit the front page over normal submissions by users.

Evidence that the r/video mods were paid to remove it? These are specific people you are making an accusation against, not some nebulous dark hidden organization.

I didn't see the video but didn't they give a good reason as to why they removed it? I'm not denying that there could be some legit fuckery going on.

Also cuckservatives

Thank you so much. This is bullshit.

Why the hell would United do that? You're supposed to offer a customer money when you fuck up.

In capitalist America, you don't own company, company owns you! Expect more of this behavior as time rolls on, if this is new to you.

Funny how the company fucks up, sells more of something than they have available, and the person who walks away in handcuffs with a criminal record is a paying, innocent customer.

If you see the way police treat minorities, the shootings, the treatment of protesters, the double standards, 'affluenza boy' and the the civil asset forfeitures and you STILL don't see that the police are only there to serve the elite, then IDK what will ever wake you up. Maybe you're still above the water level, but that level is rising every day. They are still faking the motions when you make a police report, if you're in a good neighborhood.

They are used to protect the elite, but to say that is their only point is ridiculous. Most police are good guys and want to help, but because of the internet we only hear about the really bad instances and the towns known for police brutality and we assume thats what theyre all like.

If the doctor calls the police and files a report that he was wrongfully (and forcefully) thrown off of the plane, do you think they will do anything?

Most of them are just normal dudes that think just like you do.

And this is the problem. Most PEOPLE are just normal dudes, but for some reason people think that cops are completely infalliable, and that people are all criminals. The police think that all citizens are criminals and the company is in the right.

A company calls the police to have someone thrown off of a plane. Then this happens. Doesn't matter that he paid to be there. Doesn't matter that he was already seated on the plane. They were either overweight or they had a higher paying customer who needed his seat. Either way, he is not the problem. They called the police, they took the airline's side and forcefully ejected him from the plane. Everyone else was visibly upset, yet the police just couldn't see past their preconceived notion that the airline was right and he was wrong. And no one else was willing to stand up for this man because they were afraid of being wrongly singled out and forced off the plane at the hands of a police officer serving their master.

Corporations are people my friend, they have all the rights and power, Americans are simply pawns on their chess board.

At least pawns are still something. We are lower than amoeba.

By doing this they were simply deferring payment of a much larger sum. They also brought his lawyer in for a cut.

They offered $400 and a hotel stay, when no one volunteered they upped the offer to $800 and a hotel stay. Still no one accepted. A manager boarded the plane and said they would use the computer to pick 4 people at random. This guy was the 3rd chosen, he refused stating he had to see patients at a hospital in the morning.

That at least makes this not so completely wrong. But forcibly removing customers and causing a concussion because you want to throw some staff on the flight at the last minute is indefensible, imo.

Oh I completely agree. They even let him back on the plane after the fact, to me that shows they know they screwed up.

The people they picked are likely due to the fact that their ticket price is the cheapest. Meaning the compensation they are required to compensate for.

If the passenger will arrive between one and two hours later than planned — or between one and four hours for an international flight — the airline must pay the passenger twice the amount of the one-way fare to his destination, up to $675.

If the passenger will be delayed more than two hours — or four hours for international flights — the airline must pay him four times the one-way fare, up to $1,350.

The time to bump someone from a flight is not after they have been seated on the plane, but before they board. Keeping in mind in 2016 United bumped between 40,000 and 63,000 passengers off flights due to overselling. Across all airlines that number is closer to 434,000. These numbers also do not always include volunteers.

As a reference where I got this information on bumped flights see the link below. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/article/20170410/AP/304109926

I would like to see what happened before. These are always out of context clips.

United offered $400 to anybody who would take a later flight. Nobody jumped. Then they offered $800. Nobody jumped. Then they announced a computer would randomly select 4 people who would be bumped, no questions. Doctor was chosen. Doctor refused to go. So the airport police came to force him out.

Question is, do they still offer the $800 to those 4 people?

Also... in cases like this, shouldn't it just be first come first serve?

So I completely get why he was indignant about leaving, it's a shitty practice by the airline. I don't entirely have sympathy for him beyond that though since he was clearly out of line enough that they had to get police involved.

Why did United let people on the plane if they were going to kick 4 of them off?

It makes no sense.

cartel economies lack competition, which enables poor management to flourish.

Can't believe $800 is the cap, they just committed corporate suicide

He should have offered them a Pepsi

... All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi. And she wouldn't give it to me. Just a Pepsi!

All I wanted was a Pepsi

Cyress Hill - How I Could Just Kill A Man

Here's something you can't understand...

That's right, I'm turning into the guy who quotes shit instead of offering actual conversation. Knibb high football rules!

I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul

Meant to answer your reference earlier, but... I was chasing invisible penguins. I'm one of the good guys, penguin, don't run....

Talkie talkie talkie, no more talkie

So sorry to interrupt!! Heh heh.

Occasional non-sequitor quotes are welcome. :)

Well, a flute without holes is not a flute, and a donut without a hole is a danish.

You're just giving them more publicity by perpetuating the meme.

Now is probably a good time to remind everyone that United only exists because of a giant taxpayer bailout

What was the context of this video? My app just restarted for no reason, never seen that before.

A passenger was removed from an overbooked flight by police. Just because it was overbooked.

No, it wasn't "just overbooked"

It was regularly booked but United wanted to move some employees, so they offered up to $800 for people to give up their seats (4 of them) and nobody volunteered. Then they "randomly" selected people to be removed by "computer" and this guy didn't want to move, called his lawyer regarding his patients in the morning, and then was forcibly removed after refusing.

Why spread bullshit when the truth is so readily available?

Yeah I'd like to know what happened before this. They say they were looking for volunteers, this guy clearly did not volunteer so why remove him with force?

Interesting things to note here is that he was "involuntarily bumped" which usually only occurs before boarding. The Airline might have been out of luck here seeing as the plane was already boarded. He was apparently bumped to make room for United Airlines crew. He got back on to the plane 10 minutes later with a bloody face and apparently said "I need to go home"

lawyer-up! $$$$$$$

Whoa, there is a story here even if not exactly the one we expect.

I was literally sitting around just looking at reddit all day and this shot up to top and then disappeared in like an hour. As I stared looking for it, things were being taken down in minutes real time.

They wanted 4 volunteers to give up their seats so United could fly employees who I guess were needed elsewhere. Initially they offered $800 per seat but no one spoke up. Then they had the computer pick four people randomly. One couple was chosen and deplaned prior to the video. Then this guy in the video was chosen, refused to go, and was forcibly removed.

Wow wtf. Really goes to show how Americans have no rights at all in reality, and corporations control the police and the state.

VERY forcibly.

And the guy was a doctor who needed to see patients within hours after the flight.

wiped just as east coast wakes up.

Post the archive!

No worries, it was found and mirrored all over the internet and put on darkweb and mirrored on freenet so it will never be lost again

https://www.reddit.com/r/TruthLeaks/comments/64jnc2/reddit_doesnt_want_you_to_see_these_videos_thats/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Can we turn this off?

Only moderators can turn it off but you can set AutoModerator to ignore using something like Reddit Enhancement Suite.

How does NP protect accounts?

How does NP protect accounts?

How does NP protect accounts?

Putting [not clickbait] in the title doesn't make it stop being clickbait.

Oh snap. TIL /r/TruthLeaks. Subscribed. Good looking, 911.

If you've bought a ticket and you're on the plane, what makes someone back in the terminal more important than you? This is just crazy.

It was a united employee too

I'd love to know the identity or have a picture so we can see what a disgusting douche that United Airlines employee is that had this man who was already seated removed so that they could travel instead.

If their ticket was more expensive (ie, they fly higher class than you). Not saying I agree with it though.

The "re-accommodation" was for four united employees who reportedly needed to be at the destination airport to serve on a later flight.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

no

You sure told that bot. I'm sure it got the point.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

That's pretty sad. There was basically universal support for the passenger and universal animosity for United, so it's not like this caused any controversy with Reddit users that would have led to them reporting the post.

Pretty obvious this is Reddit favoring corporate PR over the benefit of it's users.

No it broke the rules of the sub it was posted on.

The rule where we cant post any detrimental material pertaining to advertisers?

/s

No the one against police brutality.

It used to be that a group of people would stand up for their neighbors when they saw something wrong happening like this... Our national submissiveness to authority is at an all time high (and climbing).

We're always taught to stand up to injustice, except of course it seems when a police office is involved. Then, we simply sit back and take it. Or in this case, allow one of our fellow citizens to take it. I like to believe I would have said/done something if I had been a fellow passenger on the plane.

You would have sat there and chirped like the rest of them. Anyone could have volunteered to take his place, but nobody did. Not for money, and not to help that doctor's patients. They sat there and chirped.

That's all you need to know about humanity.

We're always taught to stand up to injustice, except of course it seems when a police office is involved. Then, we simply sit back and take it.

It's ridiculous that that's literally what they teach kids now. Just submit, and take the cop to court and (hope) that you might win. Cops are given carte blanche powers to do what they want and it's up to us as citizens to just accept it because they're "the good guys"

They're not doing it because the cops are right, they are teaching kids like this because the cops are trigger happy and will kill anything at the drop of a hat.

Yep, and it's always up to the citizen to not get killed, instead of the cop to not kill.

Thank the rebuplicucks for giving our country away to corporations and giving them all the power.

You are delusional if you think the left isn't in the corporations pockets.

I'm aware both parties are. But one party really champions thier cause for our corporate overlords.

Did you actually see Hillary's donor list? Both sides represent the Corporatocracy by design and the ideological split is just a facade to ensure the people feel represented, while their future is sold out to Corporations.
You can only vote for representatives of your enslavers, or it's a 'wasted vote'.

Hillary could be backed by put in like trump. It doesn't matyet to what I'm saying in that post. One party is very pro corporation publicly is all said. The other side is just as bought it's just by different corporate places.

the erosion of civil liberties in the US has been a bipartisan effort. both sides support the NDAA and Patriot act. educate yourself.

You realize no one could vote against the patriot act right. At the time you would be seen as treasonous, that's a joe argument.

67 people voted against the Patriot act. One senator and 66 Representatives​. 5 of those representatives would go on to become senators. So apparently they weren't all seen as traitors.

Hmm my understanding was everyone was pro for it being passed. I'm obviously misinformed.

Thanks for the correction.

It has been renewed three times since its original legislation. hopefully, you are not being serious.

Deadly serious. I hope you don't get facts from any news sources. As this sub will tell you, they are all worng and pushing an agenda.unless it confirms thier bias then the source is ok you know?

Wasn't it Podesta's emails that said something about working to make an unaware and compliant base?

Not saying we aren't submissive as a culture but in the video, people are defending the man and condemning the policemens actions

Everyone is too busy pulling their out, hoping to record the situation and make a big payday selling it to the today show.

I was waiting for my wife to leave a doctor's appt. at the hospital a few months ago when there was a car crash in the parking lot. I turned to see what happened, and all I saw was a crowd gathering, with phones aplenty pointed at the two cars.

I walked over and simply asked the drivers if they needed medical help. Sure they were both agitated and hard to understand, but luckily only their prides were hurt. Once I made sure they were ok, I excused myself from the situation.

It makes me sad that people are so reluctant to help others today.

They had every right to remove that passenger (being a doctor has no relevance on the matter). Reddit is full of entitled shitkids who think everything is owed to them. Airplanes aren't Government Welfare, they're privately owned businesses and can do what they want with their seats.

They offered more than fair compensation and when there weren't any takers, went to another 'fair' method, randomly removing 4 passengers.

Whether or not they made the mistake of overbooking is irrelevant, it's their airplane and their policy. The doctor should be pissed but walked off once the Air Marshall's got involved. It's pretty simple logic.

But overbooking means that there'll be a couple people waiting to get on that plane... like why are 4 people needed to leave? Does that mean 4 people were standing waiting to get on that flight? Couldn't they have taken the L and gone on the next flight?

Just struggling to understand why it needed to be people already sat?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Yeah, I guess it was 4 employees that absolutely had to get to their destination to keep working today. They definitely screwed up, not arguing that, but people defending this 'doctor' are just wrong.

It's not "his" seat, they made a trade for that seat in return for money and he signed knowing they had the power to remove him if necessary. That's all part of the "trade". He took it way to far, to the point of being physically removed. Yelling, screaming, and resisting aren't going to change anyone's mind...at that point it was already over, he just should have left.

They were offered more than fair compensation

"Fair compensation" is whatever I decide the seat I've already paid for is worth to me. Too fucking bad that other employees were going to have to work extra hours because the airline didn't do it's job. I'm sick of corporate fine-print bullshit and this is a perfect example of using legalese to tell someone that what they paid for isn't theirs.

whatever I decide the seat I've already paid for is worth to me.

Well, they could have just refunded your money and told you to fuck off. Just because you paid for a flight doesn't mean you own that physical seat and can do whatever you want.

End of the day, if you don't like the corporate fine-print don't use their services.

No they can't actually. There are laws about refunds for overbooked seats number one being that they have to pay out at least 4 times the face value of the ticket and provide lodging if necessary.

There ya go, it's about the people!

Well, they could have just refunded your money and told you to fuck off.

You're really going all out in your defense for United, but this statement makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of flooding this thread with comments defending United, maybe you should've taken the time to educate yourself about passenger rights:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.

If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum)

The only situation in which a passenger isn't entitled to compensation is when they are put on another flight which arrives within 1 hour of the original.

Yes, I just learned that, so there's a law to give additional compensation to passengers. Great!

No my argument, my argument is that the doctor acted poorly. He legally had to give up his seat once he was chosen, go ahead and be pissed but don't say on the plane, screaming like a child to the point you need to be physically removed.

screaming like a child to the point you need to be physically removed.

From the video I've seen, you have that backwards: he doesn't start screaming until after the air marshals start to remove him. Admittedly the screaming seems a bit over the top, but the marshals aren't exactly gentle, as evidenced by the man's busted lip, fucked up glasses, and the passenger who comments "No, this is wrong, oh my god, look at what you did to him"

Of course it's entirely possible that the video is missing some context, and he was also screaming before he was removed. But the fact that the other passengers sounded legitimately distressed and concerned over what happened to the guy makes me think this is not the case.

But if you have a video or any other evidence of this guy acting up before his removal, please post a link.

Airplanes aren't Government Welfare

They receive a large amount of taxpayer dollars

Not the point, that doesn't mean they owe you a flight. Let's not get derailed here.

I was pointing out that you said airlines were not government welfare, when in fact, they get many protections from the government. Like this one:

• Federal preemption. Many passengers don’t realize their basic right to seek redress through state and local courts doesn’t apply against airlines due to federal preemption; only U.S. courts oversee airlines. As the American Bar Association noted: “Practically all state consumer protection statutes and tort claims are rendered useless against air carriers.”

Sure, you made a point but it had nothing to do with my analogy.

Government welfare is an entitlement program, Airlines aren't entitlement programs where they owe you a flight. We good?

Your "point" is a stupid red herring, because nobody was flying on an entitlement. They entered into a legal contract of carriage with United by paying money for their seat on that particular flight.

We good now?

And in that contract United has the legal right to remove you if necessary. When the doctor was randomly chosen, he should have left the plane.

Following now?

Their desire to move employees around because of their own personnel fuck-ups does not constitute "necessity" under said contract.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

In their eyes it was. If it's illegal to remove someone, in the fashion they did, sue them.

Quick tip: It was perfectly legal.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, educate yourself about contract law. Neither party can arbitrarily declare a situation "necessary" that isn't explicitly stipulated (spoiler alert: this wasn't) in the agreement.

Sue them, see if he wins. They have the right to remove any passenger, flights aren't guaranteed.

As a side note, Chicago to Louisville is only a 4.5 hr drive. He could have taken the money, tried to exchange the hotel for a car rental and been on his way (rightly pissed off). Instead, he got fucked up and ended up in the same situation.

So tired of entitled shits.

I promise you, lots more people are even more tired of ignorant asshats like you with uninformed opinions.

So I'm the asshat because a company legally exercised their contractual agreement.

K.

Cite the clause in the contract, or wear the uninformed asshat label proudly.

I already have... you can either be removed voluntarily or involuntarily.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

The "necessity" is determined by the party in "need" which is the Airline. This is elementary level understanding.

There's nothing in your link that remotely applies to this situation. The closest clause in there is Section 25, but even that isn't applicable here.

The flight was not oversold, per the contract: "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."

This is elementary-level understanding.

Yes there is, when overbooking takes place, they apply rule 25.

All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.

Aren't you tired of losing yet? (you're not)

Once more, for the peanut gallery: THE FLIGHT WAS NOT OVERSOLD.

Re-read the meaning of that term in the contract.

No, it was overbooked, and when overbooked, they apply rule 25.

oversold =/= overbooked.

"Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."

Your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your reasoning skills. Airline employees seeking to get to other airline facilities are not "passengers holding valid confirmed tickets."

What is wrong with you? Rule 25 is about being oversold, yes, but they also apply Rule 25 when the flight is overbooked as well.

All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.

READ

It's confirmed the flight was overbooked, which in that case, Rule 25 (oversold) applies.

STOP LOSING

"Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."

What part of passengers holding valid confirmed tickets is confusing your little brain?

Ok, even after that last reply you still can't grasp the difference between overbooked and oversold?

I'm done with you, have a good day.

"Overbooked" is a legally meaningless term. It isn't defined in the contract of carriage, and appears only once, obliquely referring to Rule 25, which governs "oversold" situations.

Logically, one could infer from context that the former term was used interchangeably with the latter.

In either case, you're still wrong.

Quote from United

Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked," said the spokesperson. "After our team looked for volunteers

It was overbooked. Period. End of story. When overbooked, they apply Rule 25 (which I quoted as well)

"Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."

Some company mouthpiece claiming to the media that the flight was oversold does not make it so. Per the contract of carriage, the flight was not oversold, ergo Rule 25 doesn't apply.

Dude, what are you doing?

Last time I'm going to help you.

100 seats for sale : 100 seats bought. This is not oversold, you're right.

100 seats for sale : 100 seats bought : 4 additional seats booked, hoping not everyone shows up. THIS IS OVERBOOKING.

When overbooked, the oversold Rule 25 applies. I've already linked it from the contract twice now. Please, please grasp this.

All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.

That's cute that you've tried to fabricate your own definition for "overbooking" that conveniently supports your untenable argument. My grade-schooler would be proud of you.

Let me know when you find an actual definition in the contract of carriage, Wrongy McWrongerson.

By the way, do you think I should be able to light up a cigarette on a plane? Because it's being argued in this very thread that if you pay for that seat, it's yours. All the other fine print be damned!

Not interested in your strawmen. Take that shit to /r/fallacies where it belongs.

Thank you. Literally nobody is saying that people are entitled to air travel.

No. Who is to decide what "fair compensation" is? The airline? You? Or the THE PEOPLE GIVING UP THEIR SEAT. Duh. It's the latter--that's capitalism, that's supply and demand.

The airline needed to keep raising the reimbursement price for giving up a seat until people took it. You don't FORCE people off the plane.

But corporations before people, right? Is that how you see the world? If so, this is probably not the best subreddit for you.

It seems fair to me and you're right, that doesn't mean it's fair to someone else. That was my personal opinion on the matter.

If someone else doesn't agree that it's fair, they hold their ground and it goes to the random selection. Life kicks you in the nuts and you leave the plane, that's the contract you got involved with.

But corporations before people, right?

Not saying that at all... they at least made an attempt. It was perfectly in their rights to just refund them their money and kick them off. Instead, they "tried" to make it right buy offering a refund, $800, and a hotel room. Life isn't perfect but I don't want to live in a world where a person gets whatever they want, even when that thing isn't theirs.

By the way, Corporations aren't nameless, faceless, evil monsters... their made up of humans doing work in order to provide for themselves and their families.

I've worked for several huge corporations--four with revenues over $1B, to my count--and my experience is that the top executive leadership has names and faces but are very much evil, greedy, soulless crony capitalists. The people they employ rationalize their mostly meaningless jobs by providing for themselves and their families.

Fuck, I was kinda with you throughout this thread. Like 'this nerds just playing devils advocate, may even have a good point' then that last line.

Bahahahaha.

They have a contract. The guy paid his part, now the airline is supposed to fly him to his destination at the agreed upon time. Not to mention how fucking stupid they were to do this. Could have saved a few million by just increasing the price they would pay for someone to stay behind.

It's not a 1 for 1 trade, the airline has other stipulations... why are you not getting this.

They offer a voucher to "buy" back the seat, if no one takes it, tough cookies. I could understand if it were an emergency, but this seems shitty and those fuckers need a good kick in the teeth

This man wasnt denied bording, he was already in his seat.

wtf is this United corporate comment

No, it's just reality.

A bootlicking slave reality.

Slaves are forced to do things against their will. When you pay money for a service and the fine print that come along with it... you are doing so by your own free will.

You can also drive, really sticking it to the man!!! lol

I agree with your post in general. However, why are publicly funded police removing the customer? Shouldn't United use their own security and be responsible for their actions?

I don't know man, I'm not in the airplane business. Honest question, why do we have Air Marshall's? Are they forced on the Airlines, were they requested, etc? Do we put them on there to combat terror attacks? I really don't know.

Pretty sure they became standard after 9/11.

I paid for my hamburger, but the cook of mcdonalds is hungry so he can come take my hamburger out of my hand because he is hungry? Fuck that. This man was sitting in his seat ready to go.

When we trade money for services, we often "sign" a contract with additional stipulations that 99 out of 100 times are never exercised. This isn't one of those times, United needed 4 passengers to leave the plane, when no one did, they randomly selected 4. Those 4 got kicked in the nuts by life, I won't argue that, but in the end, they needed to leave the plane (per the contract they signed).

Does the fine print say " if we fuck up and need to send employees somewhere, we can take your seat by force?"

They waited until passengers were seated and then decided they needed four seats for their own employees. If they had just offered more money, or something like an upgrade to first class on another flight, this wouldn't have been an issue. You're either an idiot or the worst shill on this entire website, there's no justifying United's actions or Reddit censorship.

Why do you think that you don't have to abide by the contracts you sign?

Well seeing as United wasn't abiding by the legal requirement they have to offer four times the value of the ticket why should we be expected to? Also are you just farming downvotes at this point?

There's a difference between voluntary and involuntary. They offered a voluntary amount of $800, involuntary they receive 200% compensation. I'm not farming downvotes, I'm being downvoted by irrational thinking. It's part of the contract one signs to fly on their plane.

Rule 25

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

that same rule stipulates that all that applies pre-boarding

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

pre-boarding and boarding. Yes.

he looked pretty boarded

maybe he works out

The only logical conclusion is the doctor was a Trump supporter.

That's not rele-

looks at username

carry on, CNN.

United can suck my dick. 20ish flights with them, 20ish flights were either delayed or cancelled.

Overbooking? These pricks overuse that. Maybe they should stop overbooking flights? This never used to happen, now it's status quo. I was once bumped from a flight as a minor, and scared shitless.

The problem isn't overbooking - they're playing a game of "futures" (the market price for a seat at some point in the future) vs spot market (the price of a seat right here, right now). If they can earn extra income from playing the futures market in their seats, it should help reduce ticket prices and keeps flights full.

The problem is that they're not honoring the spot market. It has to be an auction that continues until they find somebody willing to give up their seat for the spot market price.

What they're doing is absurd. It would be like if the Chicago Futures Exchange decided that the spot market price of pork bellies had increased too much, and they were going to seize a shipment of pork bellies.

It's theft.

They've gotten away with this crap for far too long.

Land of freedom

this "Reddit" censorship is getting increasingly uncomfortable for me. So much controlled narrative.

If I can play devils advocate for a second ...

I think what happens when these high visibility videos get removed isnt actual shilling (though it may very well be). I work for an internet hosting company in their legal dept. And we get requests for videos etc to be taken down or pictures removed. And honestly, sometimes, the content is legal and perfectly allowed to be there.

What makes us act (sometimes) is the threat of a lawsuit and while we are a bigger company, we dont have the money to defend ourselves everytime we would refuse to take down a video.

So Im willing to bet what happened is this: Video goes up. Airline company sees it and sends take down notice. Reddit says its allowed. Airline company says take it down or we will sue you since we cant ID the user as you are allowing the content. Reddit says "I dont have enough money to fight this long term and win, and all for what? So one user can keep a video up that can be found anywhere right now? We'll just take it down".

Reddit doesn't host the videos.

Oh I see. They could still send a request to all site with links to the video to remove it too.

It's even easier, videos has rules, and #4 says

No Videos of Police Brutality or Harassment

No idea why the rule was defined, but lawsuits are probably a good guess.

Business 101. Since the customer already has his ass firmly planted in the seat, bump the passenger that does not.

Want to feel good? Check out the United airlines subreddit ;) there are too many posts of this incident for the mods to censor.

Not necessarily. I mod /r/unitedairlines. Im not removing this because this shit is important and people who remove this are corporate shills. You posted this when there was already 2 posts of the same event, each with substantial amount of comments. I removed yours because it's the same event and didn't have any discussion going on. There were a bunch of posts from different sources covering the same event.

But otherwise, yes, i will not be censoring anything over at /r/unitedairlines other than deleting reposts.

So why dont we just all post it on every sub that it should be seen on?

I saw it, a bunch of barbarians, I'll never fly United ever again, I swear.

So it's not possible that the bloody video depicting assault and violence and which did not adequately protect the identify of the individuals involved violated the rules of various subs to which the video was posted?

Personal info is not allowed in most subreddits, you don't need to censor the face

Reddit doesn't like Asians.

Somebody linked it over on /r/unitedAirlines. Would be fun to consistently upvote and keep it on the front page permanently.

It's showing #2 spot right now on my page

It was on CBS This Morning. Not exactly something they are getting to hide

Because they don't want to miss out on that United Airlines advertising $$$s.

Reddit is owned by Conde Nast. There's nothing more you need to know. No conspiracy. No shills. No mystery here. We might as well be upset about the cover of Architectural Digest.

Looks like a regional jet.

If the plane was overbooked he wouldn't have been boarded.

Instead what happened was the plane was overloaded.

I guess the pilot should have let the plane takeoff and crash.

One would think that, of all people, Reddit admins and mods, would be well versed and familiar with the concept of "Streisand Effect".

They were willing to shell out $3200. For that money you could put four United employees in a limo, drive them the four or five hours to Louisville, and avoid abusing a random passenger who will hopefully lawyer the fuck up and take much more than $800 home.

Pics or didn't happen

Nice job /r/conspiracy. I'm proud of you for taking /r/The_Donald's dick out of your mouth long enough to pay and promote this story

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

So you're saying there dick was in there the whole time?

/r/videos claimed if violate rule 4 which bans videos of police brutality. 1. That's a stupid rule and 2. Police brutality wasn't even the major focus of the video. My god Reddit is becoming such a shitty website, and the worst part is they have the gall to lie to us like that.

And yet, here you are, adding content.

It's on the top of r/news at the moment and has been for awhile. It's been out for over 15 hours on social media so there's no chance for a cover up. Settle down

I just watched the video from a post on the front page.

The real reason it was removed was because it was posted in r/videos. They have a policy where you can't post police brutality videos. The mods of r/videos removed it, not Reddit.

I agree that's a stupid reason but that's what happened. See the new post for this video on r/news if you want proof

Corporations vs. peasants.

There are literally 15 subreddits that are all posting this video..fuck.

It was a united employee too

If their ticket was more expensive (ie, they fly higher class than you). Not saying I agree with it though.

Does the fine print say " if we fuck up and need to send employees somewhere, we can take your seat by force?"

Once more, for the peanut gallery: THE FLIGHT WAS NOT OVERSOLD.

Re-read the meaning of that term in the contract.