It's been outrageous to me the evolution in argument of those desperately attempting to support this billion dollar company's ruthless conduct.
First the excuse was that the airline had every right to remove this man from his seat because, well, he entered into a contract with the company and that contract allows them to do whatever they want.
Then when it was explained that the airline's contract regarding delayed boarding doesn't apply to those who already boarded, people tried to claim that you aren't actually boarded unless the plane is in flight.
And when it was pointed out that the man got unnecessarily brutalized when they tried to remove him, "well the space is small and he hit his own face."
When it was shown that physically removing passengers with force is only supposed to happen to passengers who are causing a disruption, the apologists dredged up the man's medical license issues and mental health status as if that justifies what was done to him.
Then it was explained that other passengers seemed to be appalled at the man's treatment and none seemed to state he hit anyone or otherwise caused problems except refuse to move, there were those who tried to say, "well, there are passengers who likely saw him act out but they would never talk to the media for some reason. They would go straight to the police and the airline instead."
When it was explained by lawyers that the contract not only doesn't apply to the situation at thanks but even if it did would not allow assault and battery, or unjust enrichment of the airline in this manner, the excuse was that the legal concepts here are just too complex for regular lawyers to understand.
When it was finally shown that various aviation and legal experts as well as United itself stated that United was, in fact, at fault to drag a resistant man out of his seat once boarded, the corporate defenders accused the man of simply trying to get a payday, and implied that the
man should've simply given in and because he didn't he should've anticipated what happened and not caused unnecessary problems for everyone else. So even if United wasn't right, he was wrong for not giving in. And United HAD to bully him because he didn't obey.
Wow.
I guess some people think quietly acquiescing to the unjust demands of a company that earns billions, simply because they tell you to, is the dignified, mature thing to do. Some people don't find the never ending deterioration of customer service or customer rights to be a problem. Some feel that because a
company has all the power and money, they should be able to do what they want and if you want to give them your business, you need to shut up and obey or you're throwing a tantrum and being a brat. Some people feel that if you don't quietly obey and simply accept just another injustice at the hands of massive corporation, you are risking a beating or worse and get what you deserve. Or what is necessary.
I don't.
I also don't think that refusing to let an entity with more power take advantage of you is stupid. I don't think it's about trying to get a big payout in exchange for a broken face either. Sometimes it's just about not being willing to allow yourself to be victimized.
And make no mistake- a company that profits by billions every year that refuses to let a weary passenger maintain the seat they paid for and get to their destination as planned, merely because the company wants to profit, is not only wrong, it's disgusting. And it's bullying the little guy.
I think that at times, standing for what's right even if it means inconveniencing others is exactly what's needed to prevent further indignities, worse inconvenience and more bilking by those with the power.
I believe this could be the tipping point of Americans finally deciding they're not going to be chumps anymore and are going to start taking back the power from greedy entities.
I hope so.
