United Airlines Physically Removes Passenger, Some Perspective
You may have seen video of United Airlines having a passenger forcibly removed from one of their aircraft. It certainly is troubling to see the police involved with removing a paying customer from an airplane using excessive force. We must remember however, that this is United’s plane and as such, if they ask you to leave, you are no longer a passenger – you are a trespasser. (Read the fine print).
Before we get into the outrage, let’s get our facts straight first. There is misinformation aplenty to be had in social media and most MSM articles.
Here is what a pilot friend shared with us here about the situation that United Airlines was in and what they were dealing with:
So here’s what happened:
At the last minute, United had to “deadhead” a crew to Louisville to be in position for a flight the next morning. Due to previous delays, cancellations, etc., this was not previously planned.
The flight to Louisville was full (not oversold). But adding the deadheading crew put them in the oversell situation.
This is from one of the pilot’s of the deadheading crew: “We were scheduled to DH on an earlier flight on Expressjet which went down for hours for MX, so scheduling reassigned us last minute to our medal” It was a last minute reassignment. They arrived at the gate after boarding began.
United basically has two options: 1) Remove a couple passengers to get the deadheading crew on board, or 2) cancel a flight the next morning that could have as many as 76 people on board. Clearly, United would rather choose option 1.
The first thing the gate agent will do is remove any “standby” passengers. If none are on board in the first place, then they will begin asking for people to voluntarily take a voucher and be put on the next flight, most likely the following morning. If there are no volunteers, the airline must remove revenue passengers.
To remove a revenue passenger, United follows a certain priority (the passengers are not selected randomly as so many articles and posts are claiming). Generally speaking, the first to be removed are passengers who bought from 3rd party sites like Expedia by time of check-in. Then it goes to United.com by time of check-in. And the last in priority to be removed would be their MileagePlus members.
Keep in mind, all of this is explained in the fine print when you buy a ticket. United is obligated to get you to your final destination, but it doesn’t matter if it’s on the flight that you booked or next weekend. It’s all part of the contract.
Certainly, United was in a tough position, but they had no choice but to remove the passenger. And the passenger is on the property of United (technically a regional airline named Republic Airlines), and failure to comply with crew member instructions and contractual obligations as part of the ticket purchase puts the passenger and the airline in an unpleasant situation.
As a side note, as an airline pilot myself, I do not want to carry a passenger that demonstrates a refusal to follow instructions. In the event of an emergency, I expect that my orders will be followed without question. Failure to do so could have deadly consequences.
The flight the following morning was already being delayed so that the deadheading crew could have the minimum required rest under 14 CFR 117 (10 hours from the end of their duty period at the airport until they report the next day). The drive from Chicago O’Hare to Louisville is 4 hours 56 minutes according to Google Maps. Further delaying and disrupting 76 passengers the next morning so that they don’t have to displace a couple passengers the night before would be a strange decision. And chartering an airplane to move a crew is even more expensive.
In this one instance, United is facing a dreadful and costly PR nightmare. But most often it is the cheapest and most efficient option.
United (and every other airline for that matter) has determined that it is more cost effective for them to simply have rules 21 and 25 in their contract of carriage that allow them to remove a passenger.
Of course, the left (and most people) is(are) enraged:
Even the great Glenn Greenwald is feeding into the hysteria:
That’s Capitalism!!! (RAGE!!!)
Continue reading “United Airlines Physically Removes Passenger, Some Perspective”
The State Is Negan, Part II
The Walking Dead comic series and the television show based on it contain many themes which are of interest to the student of libertarian philosophy. The character Negan, who appears in the Season 6 finale and is the primary antagonist in Season 7, is one of the most obvious allegories in recent memory for the nature of the state. Let us examine the second part of his character arc to see the extent to which his behavior mimics those of historical dictators, and how his underlings and subjects react to him. As we will see, there are many lessons to be learned not only for those who would wield state power, but for those who seek its abolition. This part of the article series will cover the time period immediately following Rick’s introduction to Negan (Episode 702) up to Rick’s decision to stop living under Negan’s rule and fight him (Episode 708).
A New Community
In Episode 702, we meet another community that is plagued by Savior rule to a somewhat lesser extent. The men that found Carol and Morgan belong to a place called the Kingdom, ruled over by an eccentric former zookeeper who has a pet tiger. They all go back there so Carol can recover. When Carol is well enough to meet King Ezekiel, she feigns awe but tells Morgan later that it is a circus and vows to leave.
A team of Kingdomers leave to hunt pigs, corralling them into a building where a zombie awaits. The Kingdomers feed zombies to pigs, then slaughter the pigs and give the meat to the Saviors. A Kingdomer tells Morgan that he wants their bellies full of rot. Ezekiel is impressed by Morgan’s skill with a staff and asks him to train Benjamin, which he does. When the Saviors come, they are pleased to find the pigs larger than last time, but antagonize Richard, a Kingdomer. The Saviors say that next week is produce week and threaten to kill Richard if the shipment is too small.
Back in the Kingdom, Benjamin explains that Ezekiel deals with the Saviors because although many in the Kingdom would want to fight, they lack the means to defeat them in battle. Morgan was once against killing people, but says, “Sometimes we change our minds.”
Ezekiel catches Carol trying to sneak away, and they have a meeting of the minds. Ezekiel confesses his true background; he puts on an act because people wanted a larger-than-life figure to follow because it makes them feel safer. Carol still wants to leave, but Ezekiel convinces her to stay in a house just outside the Kingdom.
Rejection of Our Aptitudes, In The Name of “Order”
By Steven Clyde
I can only attempt to speak the words that too often go unspoken; yet who am I but an individual making a case for the individual?
We live at a strange time in the existence of humanity, and nonetheless at a time when poverty is at its lowest[1] and where the capacity to be productive and acquire wealth for oneself has been increasing steadily for centuries[2].
In the pursuit of the most functional society we can only ponder on whether our actions, which merely amount to the pursuit of our goals, can make up the society we live in; an effective society at that.
The only other alternative aside from pursuing our own endeavors is 1.) total war or 2.) a society set up through a set of rules enacted by a few men or women to create order; the same type of order we’re willing to sacrifice a huge portion of our life to in order to be secure from our own persons.
So do we dare deny that governments are coercive in nature, or even violent? Surely not our own in the United States (at least never in the name of evil we think), but unequivocally we know the answer for North Korea, Cuba, the somewhat recent (in terms of history) dissolution of the USSR, etc, no? Continue reading “Rejection of Our Aptitudes, In The Name of “Order””
The Media is the Little Spoon
There is nothing wrong with being the little spoon. I think everyone should enjoy being the little spoon at some point.
Life is all about balance!
What happens when you come to expect it? Or worse — when you’re forced to always be in that position? Being unwillingly taken advantage of isn’t something anyone wants.
When it comes to the relationship between the media and the US government, the government isn’t even the big spoon. The big spoon is “access”.
The problem is we have a government that is extremely secretive giving access cards only to media outlets willing to carry water for them.
This turns news media outlets into more of a prostitute service than an actual news organization. Which is actually an insult to prostitutes, and for that I apologize.
Disney’s The Lion King – A Review
Ahh, The Lion King. I have to be honest, I’ve probably seen the film several times over the years, and each time it seemed perfectly well made, with a well structured story and compelling, if somewhat shallow, characters. It was only on my most recent viewing that I was struck by the level of propaganda and statist subtext that seems so glaringly obvious now.
So first, a little history, as this movie is a bit long in the erm, tooth. In 1994 Disney released their 32nd animated feature film to nearly universal acclaim. Drawing on influences from Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg’s personal life in politics, as well as Shakespeare’s King Lear, the film tells the story of a young lion named Simba who ultimately triumphs over his evil uncle Scar to become king of the pridelands. As critic Glenn M. so succinctly put it, “This is the greatest Disney film of all time and possibly the most greatest cultural achievement of the the 20th century.”
Oh what a time 1994 was. A simpler time, where you couldn’t just get propagandized through the internet, you either had to turn on your tv, or go out and pay money at a theater to get properly propagandized, dammit. The average cost of a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $1.09, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered by some unknown assailant, Kurt Cobain joined the 27 club, the whitewater scandal began, ice skaters were hiring thugs to knee-cap other ice skaters, and the world was content. Oh, and The Lion King was the highest grossing film of the year.
And before you say it, yes, it is called the Lion KING, so any prospective viewer should expect a certain level of authoritarian worship and statist bed-wetting about freedom, but this movie, upon repeat viewing, is absolutely drenched with it. I mean, they actually soaked the bed on this one. This mattress is positively dripping. Continue reading “Disney’s The Lion King – A Review”
The Confusion Between Government and Society
By Andrew Kern of the Principled Libertarian
Being a commonly misunderstood fellow, I am often wrongly accused of many things. The number of times I have been accused of wanting to get rid of roads is uncountable and the times I have been thought of as selfish or uncaring on account of my apprehension to support government welfare is likely nearly as many.
Many people will say things like, “We can do better as a society” – or – “We need to help those in need.” It is a considerable misconception to think I disagree with these statements.
Frédéric Bastiat summed it up well:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Society is a group of people who work together for the benefit of one another. Government is an organization that interferes in society. Continue reading “The Confusion Between Government and Society”
The Burden of Proof
By Andrew Kern of the Principled Libertarian and Camren Carlyle
It seems for every new government regulation or intervention it’s advocates claim the free market is unable to accomplish some goal, so the government must step in for the good of all.
Or some such nonsense.
The argument usually turns into which is a better method to solve a particular issue: free markets or government regulation. This debate almost always takes place with the pretense that both sides start on equal ground. As in, whoever does a better job of showing their method will produce better results, is the method that should be pursued.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. Government interference and free market capitalism are not two harmless choices we must choose between. One is the initiation of force, one is not. One is enforcing the will of the majority (best case scenario) or the political elite’s (most likely scenario) on everyone, and the other is allowing people to interact voluntarily with others.
The burden of proof is on the person who would force their views on all via government monopoly. This person is known as a statist. The capitalist does not make fanatical promises, or put guns to people’s heads and force them to participate. That is what the statist does. If the statist wishes to centrally plan everybody’s lives the burden is on them to come forth with a plan, and when that plan inevitably fails they must take responsibility for the failure. The free market supporter, on the other hand, does not centrally plan your life. They don’t make you promises of prosperity. They only tell you that prosperity is yours to take. Whether you succeed or fail, you are living your life, and nobody but you is responsible for the actions you take. Continue reading “The Burden of Proof”