And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
Completely agree, although I feel that much like the Daily Mail, it knows it's readership well...
Well as a committed Guardianista I have to say that I don't much care for some of these op-ed pieces either. However, they are there for a very similar reason to the United debacle; that people think increasingly they can get something for nothing, or very little, that they use to pay for, without stopping to ask themselves how on earth the company can provide the same level of service for far less money.
The Guardian has gone down the digital ad revenue route, and has a relatively large readership in the States. Such articles are aimed mainly at that market and probably don't even reach the print edition.
Owen Gibson tried to explain when he was at the Trust AGM that for similar reasons the Guardian cannot cover football outside the FAPL as much as it would wish. You could see that as a journalist he very much regretted that. But somebody has to pay the poor bugger's salary.
Finally I would say that with the exception of the FT (which can charge a huge amount behind a paywall) all the other papers run op-ed pieces that are equally trashy and fact-free, but they may just be slightly closer to your personal view of the world, so you give them more of a break. Which is not a dig. It's natural. I'd still argue that when it comes to the important issues the Guardian has a greater commitment to uncovering inconvenient facts than either the Times or the Telegraph. But again, I may be more interested in what's in the Panama Papers than the average Telegraph reader.
Largely agree re: Guardian Op-Eds being not very good. But to be honest, a lot of papers who are otherwise very good at investigative journalism have Op-Ed sections that are very meh. NY Times has the occassional good one, ditto WashPo, but it feels like a dying art. Op-Ed journalism in particular was my first love, and something I thought I would go into, so it's a bit sad to see.
That said, I've found that some of the contributors the Guardian gets can still provide very good op-eds. I'm thinking of people like Jessica Valenti, Lindy West, Gary Younge is a brilliant writer about race in America. I'm sure there are more I can't think of off the top of my head, although those are notable that they're all American/America focused.
I think some of the reason why we don't see good Op-Eds in major publications anymore is the rise of sites like Vox, HuffPo, The Federalist Papers, and National Review--sites that are largely/mostly/sometimes news, but that slant a certain way. Sometimes those sites can have some excellent, thorough, well sourced, and well thought out writing. Also, Podcasts are a fantastic outlet for that kind of journalism.
And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
The Guardian needs clicks to survive, just like every other paper. That is driving a race to bottom via more and more sensationalist stories, because sensationalist stories get clicks, well researched balanced journalism does not. Not really sure what the solution is for that tbh, but I personally try and avoid opening the sensationalist stories, reading too much about major events in the immediate aftermath, etc. I try to allow time for the dust to settle and the full truth to come out and then read some 'proper' stories a week or whatever later.
And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
The Guardian needs clicks to survive, just like every other paper. That is driving a race to bottom via more and more sensationalist stories, because sensationalist stories get clicks, well researched balanced journalism does not. Not really sure what the solution is for that tbh, but I personally try and avoid opening the sensationalist stories, reading too much about major events in the immediate aftermath, etc. I try to allow time for the dust to settle and the full truth to come out and then read some 'proper' stories a week or whatever later.
People have been leveling the "Sensationalist Headline" complaint at papers for over a century now. Which isn't to say it was wrong then or is now, but it is a long standing complaint.
I think it's wise to at least take immediate reports with a grain of salt. What I've found to be the case is that the meat and potatoes stories, or the investigative, in-depth stories are still very good. The problem is that there is a much higher quantity of stories in that attempt to generate clicks, and those hastily created or kind of "side stories" are the ones that can be poor.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
Ultimately the Captain is responsible and in charge of who can come onto (and be ejected from) his / her aircraft. Having a law to regulate the exercise of his / her authority is unnecessary and would create more issues than it would solve. Slightly drunk passenger - security issue or inconvenience? The Captain cannot be bound by grey areas of law in interpreting the safe operation of their flight. It is at their discretion and they do not need a law to define their actions.
United have screwed up and there is no defence against the way they allowed a security guard to remove the passenger - it's probable that there were better solutions but they got it wrong.
Whilst in theory I agree, pilots also have to be governed by policy and legal regulation in a situation like this. It isn't a simple matter of an unruly passenger but an airline making a cock up and therefore passenger rights come into play. A lawyer on a youtube channel that I occasionally watch has been going through this incident. As part of his research he looked at United Airlines own "Contract of carriage". Whilst it covers the airline from stopping passengers from boarding because of overbooking or behaviour, and covers the ejection of passengers for various reasons, nowhere can he find anything stating that the airline have a right to remove a passenger because of their overbooking once a passenger has already been allowed to board. And remember this passenger removal was to allow a member of staff to fly instead, not because they had overbooked paying customers. There's also nothing in there about the pilot being able to eject a passenger at his own discretion outside of the guidelines. And saying that a passenger became disruptive after he was possibly illegally ordered to leave isn't a defence for the forcible ejection.
I think (would hope) that what we have seen is incredibly rare - whatever the circumstances leading to the request to offload, were it to happen another 100 times, 99 times there would be enough passengers willing to take the compensation - on the other occasion, the airline in question would have an alternative solution. Legislating for that occasion and at the same time removing a Captain's ultimate discretion would, I believe, create more issues than it would seek to solve. In reality, passenger rights disappear the second they are on board, as the Captain has sole control over what is and what isn't permissable on their aircraft - they are accountable for its safe operation. If the Captain told the chief exec of his company to get off the plane, in theory the CEO would have to do so. The pilot may not have a job the next day, but whilst he has the keys to the plane, he is in charge (unless, of course, he is unfit to fly...)
Aside from the airline, I am waiting for the security personnel to be named and shamed.... Won't take long for somebody to recognise them from the videos going round.
They and their families lives will be utterly ruined by this if there is any justice. And I won't have any sympathy for them.
I'm sure I saw them down Floyd Rd the other month...
Having a United Airlines mileage plus account that I essentially only have cos my FIL worked with them for years - they have plenty of other issues outside this anyway. Fucking miserable cabin staff who are nothing like as friendly or open as other airlines like Virgin or BA, fuck knows where they get the food from but it is shite - pasta or chicken EVERY bloody time. And the bread roll shouldn't make it through security - it's a lethal weapon. And on my last flight to LA my screen froze every time I was 10 mins in to Bad Neighbours 2. Meaning I had to spend 10 hours using the free on board wifi. Which was so slow it took me 3 hours to upload one post onto this board.
Frankly maybe getting knocked out by the staff would have made the flight go faster.
I have thought for a while they could be a Pan Am waiting to happen but does the Star Alliance collaboration lessen the chance of that happening?
I dunno, minus the miserable cabin crew, your description could fit a number of Air Canada flights I have taken, another Star Alliance airline, so maybe they will just all go down the pan together.
This
Flown Air Canada four times - miserable fuckers every single one of them. Compare that with Westjet (budget Canadian carrier) who I flew from Toronto to Mexico and back and you'd have thought it was they who were the premium airline - couldn't have been more helpful, friendlier and reliable
Happened with me, saved up my pennies and decided to book a premium economy flight transatlantic to LA, seeing friends in SD. Pre-booked my seat (paid extra) for that then checked-in online. Got to the airport and was told there was a problem with my seat, had to be given to someone else.
Needless to say, angry. Was "what's the point about reserving, etc., when you'll give away the seat." Manager said "see what I can do." Ended up on the same flight but first class...
It's now ruined flying for me, because no way in hell I can afford that, and for me now economy sucks!
Not as expensive as you think if you know how to collect airmiles and frequent flyer points.
Having a United Airlines mileage plus account that I essentially only have cos my FIL worked with them for years - they have plenty of other issues outside this anyway. Fucking miserable cabin staff who are nothing like as friendly or open as other airlines like Virgin or BA, fuck knows where they get the food from but it is shite - pasta or chicken EVERY bloody time. And the bread roll shouldn't make it through security - it's a lethal weapon. And on my last flight to LA my screen froze every time I was 10 mins in to Bad Neighbours 2. Meaning I had to spend 10 hours using the free on board wifi. Which was so slow it took me 3 hours to upload one post onto this board.
Frankly maybe getting knocked out by the staff would have made the flight go faster.
I have thought for a while they could be a Pan Am waiting to happen but does the Star Alliance collaboration lessen the chance of that happening?
I dunno, minus the miserable cabin crew, your description could fit a number of Air Canada flights I have taken, another Star Alliance airline, so maybe they will just all go down the pan together.
This
Flown Air Canada four times - miserable fuckers every single one of them. Compare that with Westjet (budget Canadian carrier) who I flew from Toronto to Mexico and back and you'd have thought it was they who were the premium airline - couldn't have been more helpful, friendlier and reliable
I got a flight from Gatwick to Toronto with West Jet for £150 and got upgraded to premium economy row 1 because i couldn't get the window seat i paid £6 for! Great airline far better than BA who had to pay me €600 in compensation due to a 4 hour flight delay caused by a lack of toiletries!
So there was some frothing outrage in the media yesterday with reports that Dr Dao had a colourful past and had been the subject of a number of interesting stories and police actions.
So there was some frothing outrage in the media yesterday with reports that Dr Dao had a colourful past and had been the subject of a number of interesting stories and police actions.
Can't read through all 5 pages, but has it been stated here that the flight wasn't oversold ? they wanted the seats for crew members so the oversold bollox is pointless
Can't read through all 5 pages, but has it been stated here that the flight wasn't oversold ? they wanted the seats for crew members so the oversold bollox is pointless
Can't read through all 5 pages, but has it been stated here that the flight wasn't oversold ? they wanted the seats for crew members so the oversold bollox is pointless
No it's not they shouldn't have sold those 4 seats if they were needed for crew.
Having heard it played again and again on the radio on LBC, that woman going "oh my gaaawwwwd, noooo, what are you dooooing" etc sounds so bloody annoying.
Just heard the lawyer on the radio. It was like watching Better Call Saul. This guy can't believe his luck. Seems to have turned it into a war against corporate America.
Just heard the lawyer on the radio. It was like watching Better Call Saul. This guy can't believe his luck. Seems to have turned it into a war against corporate America.
Down 1.1% - a totally irrelevant incident to the long term value of the company.
Before Twitter the headline would have been "Convicted crook removed from flight after acting suspiciously."
Enjoying those share prices m8?
Appears to be down $2.45 on a share price that was $72 or 3.5%.
Put another way the market capitalisation has dropped by about $750M.
Spinning the story that somehow the victim of unprovoked violence and eviction from his seat was at fault is not exactly going to assist in keeping up revenues or settling the PR gaffe.
Meanwhile the lawyer states that "his 69-year-old client’s experience was “more harrowing” than fleeing Vietnam."
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
Comments
That said, I've found that some of the contributors the Guardian gets can still provide very good op-eds. I'm thinking of people like Jessica Valenti, Lindy West, Gary Younge is a brilliant writer about race in America. I'm sure there are more I can't think of off the top of my head, although those are notable that they're all American/America focused.
I think some of the reason why we don't see good Op-Eds in major publications anymore is the rise of sites like Vox, HuffPo, The Federalist Papers, and National Review--sites that are largely/mostly/sometimes news, but that slant a certain way. Sometimes those sites can have some excellent, thorough, well sourced, and well thought out writing. Also, Podcasts are a fantastic outlet for that kind of journalism.
I think it's wise to at least take immediate reports with a grain of salt. What I've found to be the case is that the meat and potatoes stories, or the investigative, in-depth stories are still very good. The problem is that there is a much higher quantity of stories in that attempt to generate clicks, and those hastily created or kind of "side stories" are the ones that can be poor.
Screeching U turn by the CEO after realising how badly his first reaction had gone down. Not even RD could have screwed up the PR so badly!
Before Twitter the headline would have been "Convicted crook removed from flight after acting suspiciously."
And the security guard thug (s) will probably never work in that field again. And never work full stop for a long time
Flown Air Canada four times - miserable fuckers every single one of them. Compare that with Westjet (budget Canadian carrier) who I flew from Toronto to Mexico and back and you'd have thought it was they who were the premium airline - couldn't have been more helpful, friendlier and reliable
However.. .
You couldn't make it up. They really are Charlton Athletic Airways!
Surely this can't actually be the case. This could be huge.
Therefore they had oversold by 4 seats.
They should have kicked her off.
Put another way the market capitalisation has dropped by about $750M.
Spinning the story that somehow the victim of unprovoked violence and eviction from his seat was at fault is not exactly going to assist in keeping up revenues or settling the PR gaffe.
Meanwhile the lawyer states that "his 69-year-old client’s experience was “more harrowing” than fleeing Vietnam."
That sounds quite expensive!