> Bad people react to this by getting angry at the gate attendant; good people walk away stewing with thwarted rage.
Notwithstanding the rest of the column, this particular example brings the following thought to mind:
It could actually be argued that getting angry at the gate attendant is not a "bad people" response. Suppose that under those circumstances, the typical individual passenger would demand the gate attendant to either let them onto the flight, or compensate them reasonably on the spot, and if denied - even with a "it's not within my authority" - inform their fellow passengers, which would support the demand physically to the extent of blocking boarding, and essentially encircling the gate attendant until they yield (probably by letting the original passenger onto the plane), and if security gets involved - there would be a brawl, and people on all sides would get beaten. Now, the individual(s) would would do such a thing may well suffer for it, but in terms of the overall public - gate attendants will know that if they try to do something unacceptable, it will fail, and they will personally face great discomfort and perhaps even violence. And airports would know that such bumps result in mini-riots. So, to the gate attendant, such an order would be the equivalent of being told by the company to punch a passenger in the face; they would just not do it. And the airport would warn airlines to not do something like that, otherwise they would face higher airport fees or some other penalty. And once the company realizes, that it can't get gate attendants to bump passengers this way, it will simply not do it, or authorize decent compensation on the spot etc.
Bottom line - willingness to resist, minor ability to organize, and some willingness to sacrifice for the public benefit - can dismantle some of these accountability sinks.
a good "collective response" would be to deny the non-agency of the gate attendant. That is,
Maybe your point is valid for other situations, but believe me, letting someone getting on a plane after their names has been removed from the Flight Manifest (passengers list) will have very bad consequences for everyone involved.
Starting from the Captain deciding the plane will not depart until the police has taken care of the situation (assuming they find out before taking off, which is quite probable if the seat had been reassigned to someone else).
Still wouldn't change a thing. The gate keeper has no say into who gets let on the plane and who doesn't, they are there just to enforce the decision.
The only way to get this solved is if in the executive meetings one person goes "Our processes that bumps people resulted in xxxxxx cost, that's too much".
The way those costs are incurred doesn't matter, if its direct compensation or fines, but unless you can attach a price tag to it, nothing will change.
> The gate keeper has no say into who gets let on the plane and who doesn't, they are there just to enforce the decision.
No, that's not true. He is literally, physically, the gate keeper: To pass the gate, he has to let you pass. Now, you could insert another gate keeper into the scenario at the entrance to the airplane, or some turn-style with a scanner etc. but that wouldn't change the basic argument, just make the scenario a little more complex.
But they are not making the decision whether you are allowed to board or not, they are just there to enforce it. You can't talk your way on a plane with them no matter what you say if your scanned boarding pass lights up red instead of green. They don't have any authority to make decisions.
They do ultimately make the decision. I do things Im not allowed to do almost every day at work. They might have to deal with the consequences but it really is their decision
You misunderstood the point they tried to make. If a gate attendant was told to punch someone in the face, they still wouldn't. They'd probably get fired for not punching someone in the face, then win some civil suit for their lost income.
If rejecting people from flights without explanation was socially considered the same way as punching in them the face, they wouldn't do that, either.
You can deny the non-agency of the gate attendant without getting angry. My personal feeling is that no mature adult should ever get angry really under any circumstances, though I don't expect this or really blame people for being angry.
Notwithstanding the rest of the column, this particular example brings the following thought to mind:
It could actually be argued that getting angry at the gate attendant is not a "bad people" response. Suppose that under those circumstances, the typical individual passenger would demand the gate attendant to either let them onto the flight, or compensate them reasonably on the spot, and if denied - even with a "it's not within my authority" - inform their fellow passengers, which would support the demand physically to the extent of blocking boarding, and essentially encircling the gate attendant until they yield (probably by letting the original passenger onto the plane), and if security gets involved - there would be a brawl, and people on all sides would get beaten. Now, the individual(s) would would do such a thing may well suffer for it, but in terms of the overall public - gate attendants will know that if they try to do something unacceptable, it will fail, and they will personally face great discomfort and perhaps even violence. And airports would know that such bumps result in mini-riots. So, to the gate attendant, such an order would be the equivalent of being told by the company to punch a passenger in the face; they would just not do it. And the airport would warn airlines to not do something like that, otherwise they would face higher airport fees or some other penalty. And once the company realizes, that it can't get gate attendants to bump passengers this way, it will simply not do it, or authorize decent compensation on the spot etc.
Bottom line - willingness to resist, minor ability to organize, and some willingness to sacrifice for the public benefit - can dismantle some of these accountability sinks.
a good "collective response" would be to deny the non-agency of the gate attendant. That is,