A man wouldn’t leave an overbooked United flight, so he was dragged off
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Good perspective in the WP comments:
"The truly shocking thing here is that violence - with the real possibility of serious injury - was viewed as appropriate in a situation that was purely logistical. The airline wanted seats for its own employees. This was not an emergency - such as a terrorist attack or a drunk passenger endangering people. The lack of judgment is stunning. There is no way that violence was justified."
Our society is less violent today than even recent history and continued reductions are more likely than not.
Which I don't mean we shouldn't be concerned about unnecessary use of force, I mean that it requires very careful measurement to say that violence is being normalized (Rather than rejected).
I'm on the doctor's side, United should not overbook a plane and bump a customer to get their own people on board, but when someone refuses to leave what other options do you have? Taze him and drag him off? You'll have to use force to remove someone.
Ok, we're offering $10,000 to anyone who gets off.
I see twenty hands and we only need four.
How about $8,000, ok, down to 19 hands.
10 minutes later, and they probably would have ended up paying LESS than $800/seat.
DOT, Air passenger "Bill of Rights"
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo...
> 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).
What else can you do?! Am I right?!
How do you feel? It is dark, rainy and tomorrow at 8 you have a job interview in the city.
You better pack up nicely and quickly, because I'll call the cops otherwise.
Let me know if you feel like you'd understand the situation.
In the free market, you offer enough money until someone decides that the offer is good enough. Everybody has a price.
In a fascist place, you call the thugs to punch an asian doctor unconscious, so that he can be dragged away from his (paid) seat, so that employees can take their (free) seats
Pay another airline to ship your employees. This is nothing but horrible planning on United's part. Worst case: Google Maps says a 5-hour drive separates Chicago from Louisville.
1. continue escalating their shitty voucher bribes : sooner or later someone's gonna bite
2. arrange alternate air transport for the crew : they're already in an airport, and 2 of their competitors (American, Southwest) have multiple direct flights between Chicago and Louisville each day
3. arrange ground transport : otherwise known as renting a car and driving. Not super fun, but I've had ironically had United pull that shit on me from NYC to DC - i.e. they cancelled a flight and put us on an overnight coach bus. If it's good enough for customers, it's good enough for the crew.
4. suck it up and delay whatever flight that crew was scheduled for. It sucks, but it was their mistake to overbook and this isn't a safety-critical situation.
Bottom line, there are about 951 different ways to tackle this problem and they chose the absolutely worst one out of the bunch. That kind of stupidity is legitimately impressive to behold.
Isn't there a good chance this happened anyway? I heard the plane was grounded for 2 hours.
They should not get into this situation. At ALL. They should, like they normally do, handle overbooking at the boarding stage -- by either offering compensation or by issuing IDB checks to people they choose to prevent from boarding.
What happened is major mistake and is morally despicable. I hope the passenger gets punitive damages.
However, I am curious. Once they made the decision to remove him. How could they have done so if he didn't want to move? A taser?
Even on a plane full of game theorists, willing to bid up to a million dollars, you're still probably miles away from the amount this will cost in negative PR, to say the least.
Plus, I am not a lawyer, but I think IDB means just that -- boarding. Once you board the airline cannot change its mind, not for commercial reasons (although it might be able to weasel out of that by getting everyone off and re-boarding without some people). Again, take with a grain of salt; this is just what I heard.
Lots of things were legally allowed established practices until they were not; people realized they were unethical and immoral, hopefully people will begin to realize this practice is also unethical and work to abolish legal overselling
But overbooking is almost certainly right. Look, fact is that some pax won't show up for their reservation. Without overbooking, planes would fly emptier, wasting money and damaging the environment.
The airlines have fairly good predictions in most cases, and people have different preferences, so that almost always in the small number of cases where there is not enough space you can get people to get bumped voluntarily. It's really a win-win.
Sure, you can try to go to the courts to get monetary compensation for that, but you can't force them to provide the service.
In future one might consider, "how likely are they to violently drag me off a plane?"
The public has pretty well demonstrated that they prefer lower-price tickets over a higher-quality flying experience. So the airlines are giving the public what (the majority of) the public wants - a crappy, but cheap, experience.
That's the source of the brand damage here: many people (rightly or not) will be wondering whether the same thing might happen to them if they fly United, and decide it's not worth the risk.
Sure, the flight would be delayed, perhaps significantly, but the impact of that would pale in comparison to this horrendous PR controversy.
I will point out that it is not United that "chose" violence. They asked the police to intervene. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on physical force, so they did.
Now, for the police, violence has always been normal, or normalized.
Consider the appropriate responses:
1. An airline should not call in the police when dealing with customers because they can reasonably expect violence.
2. The police should be retrained not to use violence. (Is this reasonable? You can imagine other instances where this where this would endanger them.)
3. As a society, we should not let police deal with "civil" situations where violence might occur. Perhaps we need another "force"?
And so on.
edit: clarity of last point
That is absolutely reasonable. In many countries, police are trained to de-escalate potentially hostile situations. Only in the US and probably a couple of police states are police officers required to escalate to violence.
And it's that tendency to escalate to violence that makes police a threat to society.
It's not that simple. The police in the US are trained to de-escalate situations too. That doesn't stop police violence from occurring either in the US or elsewhere (there is no shortage of horrific stories of police abuse from western/central Europe as well, for example).
Sure, but practically speaking if you have a realistic understanding of how most US police forces operate, you know that involving them in any kind of dispute greatly increases the chance of violence and harm for all involved. YMMV per locality and situation, but it's a pretty sensible rule of thumb that police involvement equals increased risk of violence, even in previously nonviolent conflicts.
Which is sad and unnecessary. I think it directly results from the prevalence of "warrior mentality" in US police training and operations. They are trained to view all citizens as potential enemy combatants to be dominated, rather than innocents to be protected; they are trained to put the safety of themselves and other officers above the safety of the citizenry; and they are trained to, if not always escalate, certainly to err on the side of escalation if there is any hint of violent action or ill intent from the citizens they interact with.
Obviously not the case here, but in general, when anyone could realistically be carrying a gun, I don't think the current situation is a big surprise.
This is kinda the point of OP, police violence has become so common-place that we take it as normal happenstance when it's used. There's an air of expected guilt for anyone on the receiving side of the violence but no doubt whatsoever on whether the violence was necessary in the first place.
Even being fired for cause just means getting the same job in the next town over.
Are you sure? I've never heard of it. I have heard of a police officer who was fired for de-escalating a situation through his training as a marine.
Maybe some police department do train their officers to de-escalate, but it's very clear that many don't. In fact, many US police officers are overly eager to de-escalate.
> That doesn't stop police violence from occurring either in the US or elsewhere (there is no shortage of horrific stories of police abuse from western/central Europe as well, for example).
Compared to the US, there is absolutely a shortage of stories about police abuse in western/central Europe. Yes, it happens, but not on that scale, and the kind of police violence that Americans have come to accept as normal is not considered acceptable in most of Europe.
Wonder why. Because it's not newsworthy.
The biggest difference is most of the time when an officer abuses the public in the EU they are fired and criminally charged
In the US they are given a 3-5 day paid vacation while the police union and the dept find away to cover up the event, and the insurance company for the dept strong arms the victim into taking a no fault settlement that rarely even covers the medical costs for the victim
“In the US, police training lasts on average 19 weeks,” she writes, while “in much of Europe that would be unthinkable. In Germany, for example, police train for at least 130 weeks - http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7709638
The objection here is that violence wasn't sufficiently gated, and nor was violence minimally applied -- the airline could've just paid people to get off with a real offer, and not a dishonest offer where people suspect they're going to get tricked by funny coupons and vouchers.
Surely the flight attendants politely asked the man to leave, and when he refused they called their manager who did the same, and only at that stage did they call the police, who also probably asked the man to leave first, before finally resorting to dragging him out.
At the end of the day, the plane is owned by United, and they have every right to uninvite him from their property, at which point he is trespassing, and it becomes a police matter. Sure, they might violate their own ToS on their tickets at that point, but that's a purely civil matter.
Maybe, maybe not. Airlines are heavily subsidized by the US government in exchange for regulation so they will offer service to rural areas which might not otherwise be viable to run an airline into our out of. There are also laws and regulations which turn disobedience of airline personnel into a federal offense in particular situations.
Whether these, combined with this passenger's situation, turns this from a civil to a federal matter is something I'd leave for the lawyers.
You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent.
Much more useful would be deescalation and mediation, but that is not the training given to US police.
It seems like large portions of the police force in the US and the perception of it has degenerated to be some brutish muscle. It's concerning how much that is accepted.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or implied threat, to be deployed to resolve this situation.
It's true that police can use mechanisms other than force or explicit threat, but so can United without involving the police. The only reason to involve the police is because they are violence, at least in the form of implied threat of force.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence
United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force.
One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this.
I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point.
In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?
I hate to sound like an old guy but I do remember when police used to try to resolve issues. Much like many police interactions I've witnessed in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Police used to try to get everyone to calm down and figure out a solution that did not involve the need to get violent or anyone going to jail.
For instance, in this case, the police could have asked the doctor why he didn't want to deplane. With that knowledge they could have approached the United crew and informed them that this was a doctor who had to be at work tomorrow and imply that getting their four staff to another location seemed to be less important, so maybe they could find another passenger or find another solution.
If United persisted, the police should have gone back to the doctor and said, "Listen, we're on your side. They're being a-holes. But, it's their plane and they're asking you to leave which means you're trespassing and failing to follow the orders of a flight crew. We don't not want to arrest you or have to remove you by force, but we're boxed in a corner here. Just come with us and we'll help you file a complaint."
Yes, there's a fairly wide belief in this, including by many leaders in law enforcement; that is, that American police have been trained in a means which over-encourages use of force, and that this should be changed (in some places, the work has begun an implementing such a change.)
A key write-up of this is: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
EDIT: also:
> I will point out that it is not United that "chose" violence. They asked the police to intervene.
Asking the police to intervene because the state has a monopoly on violence, so they are free to use it in ways you are not, is choosing violence, even if the police might also veto that choice. So the issue is exactly that United chose violence.
It definitely should not have been requested of them, but it's possible laws were broken.
This passenger violated no laws but the CPD willingly intervened as an agent of the corporation.
Guys with guns weren't required. United could have offered more compensation to volunteers or accommodated their crew on competing airlines.
In related news, we learn that Barclay's "received assistance from a US law enforcement agency" to unmask a whistleblower.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/10/whistleblowin...
Law enforcement have become lackeys of corporations, when their job should be to protect ordinary people from these abuses.
I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be too difficult to place charges of some sort on him. Not complying with police orders might be one, trespass might be another.
I've never heard of trespass being used in this situation.
Since he appeared to be reasonably passive, I suspect it would be difficult to charge him with anything.
An aviation attorney commented about this and seemed to suggest it's very gray: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...
In the end, this is going to cost United a TON. United could have flown a plane with only those 4 employees on it for way less than the hit they are about to take.
Of course very few people will defend the airline's actions here, but while saying you won't ever fly United again is easy, is competition really strong enough among (in this case) US domestic airlines to enforce that boycott?
I am guessing most people will simply opt for United if their flights are the most convenient for them, and leave the boycotting to someone else.
I suspect not just because talk is cheap, but also because we have come to accept the current state of affairs surround air travel. From the moment you step into an airport until you depart at your destination, you submit. You'll docilely submit to standing in a queue being treated as a potential terrorist to the point of being shouted at if you don't comply fast enough or simply don't understand what is required of you, and (for most of us who can't afford first or business class) you'll submit to being treated as a third rate citizen. Flying means keeping your head down and submitting until you regain your sovereignty at your point of destination.
Flying sucks, and we grudgingly accept it in lieu of alternatives, or because we actually believe that this treatment is necessary for our safety. Next week people will have mostly forgotten about this incident and will fly United without a second thought if the need arises.
Then there's not much to fear, because I don't see anyone at all finding this normal. It's on every news site and social network, everyone is deeply disturbed about these events.
If anything this clearly shows that violence is FAR from normal in peoples' mind.
You can't put a man into debt unless you have the capacity for violence to enforce it. He doesn't pay you back, you break his legs, or take his sons and daughters as slaves. Today we have reduced the violence. Now companies ruin credit, get a Sheriff to evict someone from a house foreclosure, harass you with phone calls .. it's a less violence but it's still a form of it.
This violence is also the origin of money (and debt). A conqueror takes a country. That leader needs to pay his army (they are expensive). So you take the area you took and they can only pay taxes with coins; your coins specifically. Only soldiers have those coins, so you leave a garrison that gets paid from the debt you put the people in.
Before the US destroyed Libya, it had the highest GDP in Africa and no debt to the WMF. Today, the "rebels" the US imported are now in debt to the WMF and the people no longer have free electricity or education.
Any kind of property requires violence to exist. If I say "this is my land" and you disagree, the only way I can enforce my claim is through violence. Debt is just a specific case of a general phenomenon. (This applies to communal property, too.)
> Before the US destroyed Libya, it had the highest GDP in Africa
Do you have a source for this? I see Libya's GDP circa 2005 at $41 billion (in 2005 U.S. dollars) [1]. South Africa's 2005 GDP was $260 billion in current U.S. dollars [2] (bit over $200 billion in 2005 U.S. dollars [3]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-stat...
The debt motive for the invasion makes little sense. American banks made more money on Ghadaffi's Libya [2].
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/business/dealbook/libyan-...
You borrow £20 from your friends, if you don't pay there is moaning but not usually more. You borrow £100k for a mortgage and don't pay and they may change the locks and put someone else in your house but don't usually hit you.
The United violence has nothing to do with debt.
In "original" societies it is not abnormal for 50% of males to die violent deads. In our societies it is less than 2% as far as i remember. Including two world wars!
So the violence of debt is not that relevant in the big picture.
This is an internal business matter for a private company, and United had several alternatives.
United didn't have to overbook the flight in the first place.
United could have accommodated their additional crew on a competing airline or private plane.
United could have offered more compensation to volunteers to leave the flight.
There is absolutely no reason for a taxpayer-funded police force to intervene in this private matter. The passenger violated no laws.
Section 25 doesn't apply, they were not denied boarding. And I don't see anything in section 21 they've violated either. Their forced removal seems to be the airline violating their own contract, not the passenger.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
Unfortunately, the way this played out was pretty terrible. My hope would be that events like this could move United (and other airlines) to having more transparent overbooking policies and compensating people fairly, but that's not likely.
Now we have groups who place abandoning a cat on the same level as abandoning a child, as an example. It's going to be very difficult on agreeing what is "ethical" when in the "me" society it translates to "what is ethical for me, right now, based on my current views of some form of science/philosophy/religion/spirituality/etc and what happened to me personally when I was growing up"
If only one company decided to overbook, then sure, I agree with you. But if it were a law, and every airline was forced not to overbook, then it simply means the ticket prices would be a little higher. And if because of those slightly higher ticket prices, the airline might have to retire a plane or two, then so be it, but no airline would go bankrupt because of it.
We have all sorts of laws that protect consumers and employees that "hurt" the absolute maximization of profit. This wouldn't be any different. When it's a law, it just means everyone plays at a higher standard and prices are a little higher than they would be without those protections.
Also, Canada is likely going to pass such a law soon:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3370381/canada-overbooked-flights-...
The cops are likely waiting until the passenger is off the plane to take him into custody.
Actually the real police might well have told United to increase the voucher amount like any civilized human organization would do. The gate agent then looked outside and picked out the biggest meanest baggage handler she saw. I really doubt the Sky Marshals want any part of this disaster.
You can't just refuse to leave an aircraft when instructed to do so by the crew. The reason simply doesn't matter - the time to fight about that is off the aircraft.
It may be considered excessive force however - which likely opens up avenues for assault and similar charges. Heck if I know though, IANAL and now I'm well off into the speculation weeds.
As I read the article, the police showed up, and he still refused to leave the aircraft. You can't just refuse when the cops tell you to leave. There are going to be physical consequences for that.
> It may be considered excessive force however
Yes, it may.
Not that I'm saying this makes United's behavior acceptable - I have no idea how they managed to load the plane before realizing they needed extra seats - just that the law is, in this case, on their side.
Edit: changed he to they.
But also just as certainly he can tell you to leave the aircraft for refusing.
There literally is absolutely no legal right for you to stay on that vessel after the captain requests you leave.
Plenty of incidents support this on a practical level - captains remove people rarely but not unheard of for silly and discriminatory reasons. They likely get disciplined after the fact by the company, but in the moment you have zero recourse as a passenger who was asked to leave. Your options are to grab your bag and walk off, or be removed and possibly go to jail. Either way you are pleading your case on the ground.
What exactly did I say that wasn't true? If a captain removes people for discrimination, then they are removing choice from individual based on making choice for group. People don't want to hear a racist's rationalizations, so as a group decision it might be a good one, especially given it is related to in-flight matters (or the prediction it will be related to in-flight matters). Again, I state that the captain is only allowed (legally) to remove choice for individual when the group (all people in plane) are denied things related to in-flight matters.
Laws are typically rational.
I will note my response was directed to the claim that if they ask you to do something, you must do so. I'm stating that I do not believe, in all cases, the captain has the rational right, by law, to remove choice from an individual if they are not threatening choice for group. That's not to say the captain can't and won't do a removal, but it is irrational to remove choice from individual if they are not threatening group. That also implies it might not pass the muster of law, and a passenger would not be "guilty" of breaking a law by resisting removal. And besides, four people had to go, so the choice to remove that one individual's right to choice was removed by randomness or judgement, both of which are irrational actions.
The captain (afaik) can remove you for wearing blue shoes, and you must leave. He will face zero legal consequences for that action, but of course is subject to company discipline. In the absurd case the captain somehow owns the airline itself, I think there would be zero recourse available to an arbitrarily removed passenger other than IDB compensation and a refund of the ticket.
I also think the level of force in this case can certainly be argued - but I don't think the United crew will face any legal liability even if the officers do. Had they used a bit more discretion I'm quite certain this guy would have no case whatsoever even if physically removed against his will. Knocking him out of course is excessive, and I believe that is a separate argument.
I didn't intend to call you wrong, that wasn't the greatest choice of words. I'm simply stating this has been my understanding of the legal implications for some time now, as explained to me by casual conversation with various lawyers over the years since it's a curious subject for me.
This sounds to be like strictly a contract of carriage violation by the passenger, it is a civil matter, not criminal. I think the airline can't physically coerce the passenger individually once they're in the plane. They can remove his luggage and just wait until that passenger, or some other passenger, complies. But physically removing someone not engaged in criminal activity itself becomes assault.
Remember, the law is different depending on your income and status. Large companies are like very rich people. They can and do often get away with murder.
United unfortunately is probably legally in the right here. However this is a major fuck up and it will take them a while to clear this black PR mark from their record.
Anyone searching for it will find "United" might find this "Airline drags doctor off the flight because they wanted to fly their employees instead" for years to come. Hopefully it was really worth getting those employees there...
While clueless idiots are now making a huge shitstorm on social media, and then fly United next week because it's $3.50 cheaper.
So, not sure that will have any impact on United's actual numbers.
I don't have the contract at hand, but by the above wording, the man was already boarded...
EDIT: Still unsure as to the legality of this. IDB is well established, but the fact that everyone has boarded is a different matter. Reading the contract of carriage did not bring any more light to this point. And let's be clear, denying someone and removing someone are very different. At least one source says it does matter (unknown reputability) "This is important because involuntary denied boarding only applies when passengers have been fully checked in (including baggage) and are at the gate at a specified time, typically 30 minutes before scheduled departure." https://thepointsguy.com/2014/12/what-to-do-if-your-flight-i...
While the rules aren't printed very well (I just scanned United's Contract of Carriage, and the Federal Code), I believe it counts as an IDB even if you are physically on the airplane.
Airlines should make a better effort to avoid overbooking. If they can get away with this kind of despicable behaviour, they'll never improve.
If they don't get their crew to the other airport, the next day a full plane load of people (or more, due to knock-on effects) might have been denied a flight.
However, mistakes happen. For operational reasons, now the flight had a smaller capacity. Could have been that the seatbelt for a seat didn't work, or weight & balance issues.
At that point, it strikes me as perfectly legit to seek volunteers, and then, well, disembark pax involuntarily (while giving them all the help and compensation that they're entitled to, and more).
That's hardly "intentionally screwing over paying passengers".
Sure, mistakes happen. But the real mistake here is that the airline punishes passengers for the airline's mistakes. They should be taking responsibility for their own mistakes, rather than take them out on their customers.
Given this situation with an overbooked plane due to their own stupid lack of planning, they could and should have offered more money until someone did volunteer. That would have been cheaper than this travesty, and not a single person would have complained about it. Instead, they short-sightedly try to save some money by having the police (who also don't work for free) drag a perfectly legitimate customer out of the plane.
It's a distressing rejection of responsibility for their own actions.
But my understanding from the article is that the problem here was not overselling; they decided to give priority to moving their employees around over providing the contracted service to ticketed passengers. It's hard to see how that's justifiable even by the letter of the law.
With that said, don't drag people off your flights. No matter what it costs you to get staff where they need to be when you make this mistake, it'll be cheaper than the negative publicity of a physical altercation removing a passenger (even if you need to retask a commuter aircraft just to relocate the crew, or ask another carrier to get them there).
Of course, that just gives a hecker's veto to anyone insubordinate enough to refuse to leave. What they probably should have done was select another passenger, and have police waiting for the recalcitrant passenger at the destination airport: that would satisfy the need to get personnel to their destination and ensure punishment for someone violating his contract and wouldn't cause a scene.
The moment you've escalated to "we've selected people at random, and we are willing to eject people by violence or arrest them on the other end" you've already lost.
No need for violence.
I think that randomly selecting passengers is the 'other arrangements' their policy works out.
I agree that they should have increased vouchers past $800, but I disagree that it's guaranteed that there would be enough takers at e.g. $1,000 per, or even $2,000 per.
And I'm shocked at the downvotes: flight crew instructions have the force of Federal law; people who violate Federal law get arrested. The biggest mistake United made here was allowing there to be a disturbance in the first place, which caused a PR disaster. 'Man arrested on landing for refusing to leave plane' is a much better PR situation than 'man dragged bodily from plane.' Granted, 'United pays record-setting $100,000 in vouchers to convince four passengers to give up seats' is probably better PR still.
No, what they should have done is exactly what other airlines do when they are overbooked: keep raising the voucher amount until someone volunteers to get off.
Offer cash!
I, for one, am absolutely not interested in any vouchers that probably come with a shit ton of fine print, which makes them either unatractive, or impossible to redeem. Or probably both.
To do what, exactly?
"Rule 21: Refusal of Transport: UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:"
"H. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: "
"2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
Or, if not trespassing, would you like "breach of contract" or something? I'm sure they could find something; I'm neither very creative or experienced when it comes to making up criminal charges in order to punish people for interfering with my profit.
Are you sure about that
What is clear, though, is that he had a right to be on his seat before the whole sorry mess started. They probably could get him for "interfering with a flight crew" or some such crap after they asked him to leave.
While passengers usually do get the short end of the stick (and in the case of United it appears that the stick is always covered in shit, but I digress) I think the situation in Europe is a lot better.
When bumped, or even if you experience extended delays the airline must compensate you in cash. No useless vouchers, which are hard to redeem. There are a few exceptions, were that doesn't apply, namely if delays are beyond their control. Mechanical problems, however, don't count because it's their duty to properly maintain their gear.
Passenger rights within the EU are clearly spelled out and airlines can't subvert them by mealy mouthed "contracts of carriage"
I'd also wager that this wouldn't have escalated to this point virtually anywhere in Europe. Since the "smack him in the face and that'll teach him to comply" philosophy of policing seems much less aparent.
Edited: for clarity.
If a doctor gets physically assaulted by Chicago's Aviation Authority staff because you didn't leave four seats free on your flight, you most assuredly fucked up.
When a family member, or associate of Congress gets hit with this experience, then maybe the fines get adjusted accordingly.
Anyway, hopefully the guy gets a good lawyer.
No, it's a United policy:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
The airline hasn't commented yet on why they didn't go above 800, when they could go to 1350.
Voluntary compensation is entirely different - they are free to offer whatever they like to get someone off the flight. Involuntary unfortunately incentives keeping those limits low as a matter of airline policy though, of course. They can force someone off a plane for usually far less than $800 if they feel like taking a customer good will hit. This ORD-SDF flight certainly was nowhere near $1350 in IDB comp - likely less than $300 in mandatory IDB comp based on average ticket prices.
I've seen these offers go as high as $2,000 during significant service disruptions on major airlines. This is a corporate policy failure, as I'm sure the gate agent was only allowed to authorize up to $800 for that flight or something dumb.
They rolled the dice on saving a few hundred bucks against their reputation this time. I think it's safe to say they lost badly on that calculation.
They were told to save cash, and by golly, they saved that cash.
We have mileage runs and mattress runs already; why can't we have bump runs as well?
Someone get Carl Weathers on the phone!
It's a multi-day play.
The actual penalty is 4x the cost of the segment. Note this is not what you paid for the ticket on your credit card divided by two (in the event of a direct round trip ticket). This guy was likely owed somewhere in the range of a few hundred bucks as a ORD-SDF segment is likely worth about $50-100 after fees are excluded.
The $1350 is simply the max, your ticket has to be worth at least $337.50 for that to matter - at which time it's against you of course.
Think you'd probably have to fire congress to make that limit and multiplier higher :)
The law says
>Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation
Stopover is defined in the law as
>>Stopover means a deliberate interruption of a journey by the passenger, scheduled to exceed 4 hours, at a point between the place of departure and the final destination.
Thus the carrier is responsible for 4x the total cost of the ticket, from Pick to destination unless the connecting layover is more than 4 hours in length
as to the point on "after fees excluded" the law requires compensation based on the full fare
fare is defined as
>>Fare means the price paid for air transportation including all mandatory taxes and fees
SO while some fees may be included, if they are optional addons like baggage fees, upgrades, drinks, meals, etc. Any mandatory fees and taxation must be included
Ah wait, I think it's some formula based on miles and delay.
Regardless, it's some arbitrary cap for no good reason.
United have a price they were willing to cost the seat, they were unwilling to bear the cost.
Either way, it's United's PR disaster to handle.
I guess we should film everything while traveling. Editing the laughter together with the dragging and screaming would be golden...
Ubiquitous surveillance of citizens is bad. Ubiquitous surveillance by citizens is good.
Learn from my lesson though, try negotiating before you accept, not after. Not sure if it would have made a difference, but definitely less embarrassing.
But if you have to take people off the aircraft, that looks like a last minute decision made by the airline to move staff.
The best approach would have been to up the reward/incentive.
Does this imply you're much more likely to get picked for last-minute eviction if you didn't check anything in?
I've flown on budget flights before that have a similar case where your checked lugagage is not necessarily on your flight to the destination but could be on a later one. Even much later. Very few guarantees before they actually start paying out for lost or delayed baggage.
They're also allowed to ship your baggage to you or hand deliver with a shipping courier.
1. You are correct that is what they CoC states, however its not like this is really a free market (ie. the customer didn't really have a choice but to accept those terms). United, and all commercial airlines, effectively have a monopoly license. So, it wasn't really a free and open market that produced those CoC terms.
2. As sign of the "bad faith" of United's contract, the reverse situation is not permitted. That is, a customer who chooses not to fly at the last minute doesn't get to reschedule - and in many cases will simply forfeit his money. So, on one end of this contract a government monopoly can kick you off a flight via force based on whim (breaking the implied contract that they were going to service you), but on the other end the customer either has no other competitor choice nor has any recourse once they've handed over their money.
At some point, every US carrier has has or will have to IDB people, and they all have a policy that gives them as much leeway as possible under federal regulations to do so.
In this case, denying IDB would force the airlines to pay the passengers whatever it cost to get them to voluntary leave the plane. This constitutes a penalty for overbooking to the point where they have to refuse carriage, and also just compensation for those inconvenienced.
As a result they got some great press on a weekend when they might have had horrible press: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why...
1. There will be no personal consequences for any of the belligerents involved in this, including the airline employees and police officers. Nobody is going to get fired.
2. The victim will receive no compensation for his injuries, instead will be further victimized in the courts.
3. There will be no business cost to United. They are already known as one of the most awful airlines in the world, and people still voluntarily choose to do business with them. People will continue to fly with them despite them now having earned the "Beats Its Customers" badge.
However that might also still result in people deciding not to fly or switch loyalties where they are flexible (ie, someone having lots of miles in several air programs without any restriction to use UA flights).
Stochastically speaking, this event will likely have an impact if anyone at UA cares to look for it months from now.
> "The airline eventually cleared everyone from the plane, Bridges said, and did not let them back on until the man was removed a second time — in a stretcher."
My reading is they beat him so badly they had to put him in a stretcher. Is that right?
Edit: it was a tweet quoted by Vanity Fair, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/united-airlines-passe...
For comparison: a close friend suffers from tonic-clonic seizures. That's the kind you see in movies when they try to be dramating, violent shaking, foaming at the mouth. the whole nine yards. After waking up from a seizure like that he often acts rather single-mindedly towards a goal, turning violent if anything or anyone is in his way. A while back he had a seizure in public, it took 6 police officers to get him wrangled into the ambulance. This sort of significant personality change doesn't happen from a slight bump to the head. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy has a rather severe concussion.
So no. I don't think the adult man frantically mumbling "I gotta get home, I gotta get home, I gotta get home" with a bloodied face is fine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I reckon the only reason he managed to get back on the plane is because of, to put it bluntly, retard strength caused by a serious knock to the brain.
But what's being missed here is that, the person who was dragged wasn't denied to board the plane in the first place. He was already seated, a seat number assigned to him, he is on the plane and by all means and precedents, he has already boarded. You cannot anymore deny boarding for someone whom you have already allowed passage inside the plane and seated. I assume this will be a feast day for the lawyers of the person removed forcibly, as they have all the angles working certainly in their favor.
They can definitely remove any person from a flight, but the context here is that they made an error from the get go all the way to how they handled the situation.
2. Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations WILLINGLY in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
+ Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship. + The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
Some relevant points:
>> no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations WILLINGLY in exchange for compensation as determined by UA
>> If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority
Note that after the phrase UA's boarding priority, it explicitly stated that: the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment. This is very clear that their IDB clause is solely focused on a person not yet physically inside the plane, with a seat allocated to him/her.
Again, contracts and clauses are always open to different (mis)interpretations and the bias goes down to which entity one would want it favorable to.
Update: Capitalized the word Willingly as it is implied in this contract.
They don't always. Crews call in sick, flights get cancelled, weather changes schedules, incoming flight being late delays connecting flight, etc. One aircraft type gets swapped for another (not all crews are qualified on all aircraft).
Last minute crew moves will always exist.
It's also not 100% clear that these employees were essential crew, or that they couldn't have taken a different flight. There's usually a range of employees flying, not all classed as "must ride", and often some that shouldn't be classified as "must ride".
Of course, how you choose to open up seats is up to you.
I understand the economics, but it's still bullshit. Those customers want to get home and they're boarded. I think everyone should do what this guy did in this situation. He paid for a flight. He didn't read through the 10 pages of bullshit EULA (no one does) and then they assaulted him to remove him from a flight. The whole plane looked angry. Now United has a PR nightmare .. that will last 3 days before everyone forgets. People keep flying United and nothing really happens.
Their estimates are pretty good even - your odds of being overbooked - even on United, one of the worst offenders here - are about 1/1000. From what I've heard, you can sort of bargain with them from what I've heard, free food and drink, hotel accommodations, a partial refund even are commonly obtainable if you get delayed - though that kind of thing may depend on the airline. According to https://lifehacker.com/if-your-flight-is-overbooked-dont-vol... you can actually get 2-4x the ticket price if you deny getting bumped. I'd take that kind of cash in many situations.
This was severely mishandled - the big mistake here was boarding the passengers before knowing the final count with the employees. It caused them not be able to bargain with individual customers to find someone who was willing to give up their seat for some perks or cash.
You're spreading very outdated information. Airlines are currently making record profits:
"2017 is expected to be the eighth year in a row of aggregate airline profitability"
"These three years are the best performance in the industry’s history"
From: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx
Maybe oil prices of the day play a role too... but I wouldn't count on that to be true for long.
Even in this report though, you'll note that the fares are down 63% since 1995 - the competition is pretty fierce here. The absolute profit is only around measured 5% even today. I wouldn't exactly call that a great margin.
You would if you were a grocer. Deregulated airlines have low margins; that's a fact of life. They pay fuel bills, they pay interest, the executives steal what they can, and the unions take everything else. When they miscalculate and pay the unions so much they can't cover their bonds, they reorganize through bankruptcy.
None of this is new, and none of this justifies racist violence.
Though I don't see anything that makes me think this was a racist act, where'd you get that idea?
It's racist because a small middle-aged Chinese physician was forcibly removed. There's no way they would have removed a middle-aged white physician. Likewise, even the big tough airline security asshole who assaulted the physician would have hesitated to forcibly remove someone his own size or larger. This passenger was someone he could handle the way he would handle a child or a woman, without suffering the same legal repercussions that handling a child or woman in that fashion would entail.
Yes, I know there are reports of using a "random computer" to select this passenger. That's what's known in the airline industry as "lying" and in the media industry as "we like to copy and paste press releases".
Which is not relevant to over booking,
>most of the airlines barely operate at margin as it is.
False, extremely false
>You don't want to be flying around in jets which aren't at capacity,
you do not want to be flying around jets that have UNSOLD seats, you do want to be flying around jets that have SOLD but unoccupied seats, it costs far less in jet fuel the fly an empty seat than a 150-250lbs human with all their luggage.
this is why the whole overbooking justification is bullshit.
They lose money when they have to fly a UNDER SOLD flight, meaning the seats are empty because no one bought a ticket. They DO NOT lose money when they sell a ticket and no one shows up. The Rebooking fees, and various other fees more and compensate for the no-shows, and in some cases the fare is non-changeable non-refundable, so the person that does not show up has to buy a new ticket at full value.
There is no ethical, economical, or any other justification for Overselling flights than Greed.. Pure and simple
It should be considered fraud and should be illegal
Parent is right you are wrong. It is economical to sell as many tickets as possible and ecological to try to fit in as many people as possible to a single flight. Overbooking is good and helps with both.
This flight took nearly 4 hours to get to there because of the delay, and it only takes 5 hours to drive, the should have just put their employees in a car.
Some airlines have an alternative means of crew transport, used for such contingencies. For example Jet2 in the UK has a Piper Navajo to move misplaced crew around and TNT in Europe ( now ASL Airlines ) have a Learjet 45.
Even Ryanair, king of the bottom-line, occasionally uses its engineering Learjets to position crews. Much cheaper to send one small corporate jet than have a 189-passenger 737 stuck crewless and causing a cascading schedule disaster.
The airline isn't going to delay another flight because they couldn't get a flight crew there in time; they find a way to get the flight crew there.
In this case, they screwed up procedure and boarded everyone first. Then they screwed up again and had someone assaulted by armed goons in front of a few hundred people.
It's wise to avoid making such inflammatory statements until we know more.
a) the police department assaulted the customer, not United staff (although they did call the PD in the first place)
b) "beating them till they had to be carried out on a stretcher" obviously implies he was beaten until he couldn't walk, which is an allegation that hasn't been substantiated at this point.
I totally agree that United colossally fucked up here, but the statement the parent made that I quoted earlier is patently false. I'm all for being righteously outraged, but can we please stick to factual statements while we're doing it?
But when law becomes a reason to induce immoral and/or unethical (but legal) behavior - the civilization collapses.
Good luck to us all!
They could offer cash/miles to whoever volunteered, increasing the offer until someone accepted. I've seen other airlines do this on several occasions. They couldn't have handled it worse than they did.
Note the weasel wording. I don't actually know.
To be clear, every flight is overbooked.
The airlines have run the numbers, and it is clearly more profitable to sell (for example) 105% of the plane, and then if more than 100% show up, pay people off to take a different flight.
I guess the op's question is, why was it not done here?
(Sadly) Everyone has a price for everything. Obviously that guy's price was not met. As you say, the airline has done the math... does their math include the cost of dragging a passenger bruised and bleeding off of their plane? Probably... Does it include the cost of cameras capturing the whole thing? Probably not.
Who's to say that this man's price was the lowest price? Turn it into a bidding process, the lowest 5 bids on the plane get paid, and the airline gets their seats.
The potential for misuse is not a good excuse for accepting negative actions.
On one hand, infrastructure costs for idle capacity would/could become cost prohibitive. On the other hand, the provider should be held aaccountable for their failing to provide reasonable uptime/service.
But flights fill up every day. When they do, airlines maximize profit.
1) $400
2) $800
3 and final) Leave the airplane or we'll beat the shit out of you.
Glad I made the decision to not fly United 4 years ago.
I find it hard to believe no one volunteered, even for a small amount, unless they were already delayed
It'd be interesting to see statistics on how often these offers are even redeemed.
Hmmmmm....
Instead they chose violence.
I will never fly United Airlines again.
> [Charlie] Hobart said in the statement. "We apologize for the overbook situation."
In other words, "sorry about selling more seats than there were on the plane, but yeah, we had that guy beaten and dragged off. Deal with it."
Purchasing a ticket creates a contract between the individual and the airline; so long as the passenger upholds their end, which from what I can tell this passenger did, the airline is violating their end of the contract, and worse is getting the police involved in what is essentially a contractual matter. This is dangerously totalitarian, getting officers who are employed to protect the population to enforce the whims of the corporation. I simply cannot believe anyone along the chain of communication here didn't stop and say, 'this is wrong'. The lack of humanity is simply astounding - I am at a loss for words.
I sincerely hope he sues both the airline and the police for this, it's assault and breach of contract. I'll echo what others are saying, this is a dangerous situation to allow to quiet down. We need to keep pressure on United until the responsible parties are made to answer for their decisions.
If I were in a customer service position where policy dictated I kick the guy off the plane, and he did not cooperate, I'd honestly look for any way to avoid the whole police ejection bullshit. The passenger being a doctor gave those customer service people a pretty good out, in case they needed to defend their actions (to defend skipping over the guy who refused to get up and leave, specifically) to either their management or to the next person in the crowd to be picked to give up a seat. I am surprised they didn't take it.
I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of the policy.
Right from the pre-boarding request for volunteers yielding no results, to then letting passengers board, to 'randomly' selecting 4 people to 'volunteer' after failing to increase the incentive bounty above $800, to calling in the cops, to patronising responses on Twitter, to refusing to comment when major news outlets get in touch and on to the CEO failing to apologise for the harm to the guy but instead for having to 're-accommodate these customers'.
Nothing about this was handled well but you wouldn't expect it to be because it required a series of damaging institutional/cultural practices to be in place already to let the situation develop in the first place - so the response was always going to be sub-par.
http://newsroom.united.com/2017-03-17-United-Airlines-CEO-Os...
On the third page I see lots of posts with lower number of comments and an earlier post time.
I had to use the search at the bottom to find this story.
Why?
To be more explicitly, my parent comment is referring to once the airline escalates the situation to police, overriding it is out of their hands as airlines cannot control the police.
(EDIT: Looks like drcode beat me to that one)
Only reason I can think of an employee would take precedence over passenger.
So, yeah, I'd hate to be United's CEO at the moment, this is now too big to sweep under the rug and blindly quote IDB and other such laws.
They should have just realized they can get a crew to that plane and canceled that flight; take the hit. Those passengers haven't boarded yet and would be easier to deal with.
Also the rebooking is not necessarily on the same airline if they don't have a similar flight available that day but others do.
https://thepointsguy.com/2010/08/points-guy-pointer-anatomy-...
- Surely there is a difference between overbooking and diminishing the number of available seats after the fact.
- Also, I would like to see how their "random computer pick" complies with their legal obligation of having IDB priority criterions.
- That was excessive force without any doubt. I mean, they had to clean up the blood afterwards.
- The doctor had to meet patients the next day, he had to uphold his hypocratic oath, I'm not sure this constitutes a "refusal" to vacate the plane in the legal sense.
Yep, that should work.
I suspect it wasn't tresspass though, more like a bought-pass
On the bright side, "United breaks guitars" is a really catchy tune. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
Can you legally kick someone off an airplane 'just because' (i.e. not oversold/security/safety)?
Who did the removing- law enforcement or United employees?
What's the legality of private employees assaulting someone?
This is all about level of outrage though- whether the guy should sue for civil damages or should file criminal complaints.
Yes, see Rule 21 in https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag.... One of the subpoints is that they can remove you for noncompliance with crew requests, and also, "disorderly conduct".
They can even remove you just for smelling bad (H-16).
The law may be on United's side but United's employees on board could have been more human about it and not let this happen once the passenger refused to be booted off the plane. Since when is use of force the norm?
It's not 100% clear that they exhausted other reasonable options. They don't say if the 4 employees were a flight crew that NEEDED to be somewhere. There's no indication if there were other employees (not in uniform) that could have been deplaned first. There are other flights, on Sundays, that leave after this one (one at 9pm).
The judgement to go with violence after offering $400, then $800 is odd as well. Surely someone would give up a seat after the next one or two bumps in the offer. The onus is on United, since they didn't identify the issue until after passengers were boarded.
I know my input offers nothing to anyone here, apart the "poor" United employee that will have to go through all our "hate" and think "oops this is a forum for people with brains and skills and they are trashing us big time.. now HERE is a pack of skilled people that would never fly with us OR work for us!!"
There is a racist angle here too. Why target the Chinese guy?
Most likely the lowest fare ticket on the plane, since compensation is capped at 4x the cost of the segment.
select name from passengers order by ticket_price desc limit 4;Why should this man be forced off the plane when he bought a ticket, passed all the security check points, segmented a portion of his day for this trip, and was mostly a compliant customer? The fault of this is squarely on United who had many options available to them and opted to escalate it into the situation that it became.
This isn't a situation where only one seat was available on a plane and the only solution was to bump this one person off so that someone more important could take it. This is a situation where United could've easily upped the compensation to look for someone among dozens of passengers to give up their seat.
Honestly, most consumers are not going to look at this story and sympathize with United.
Shit airline policy, shit airline decision making prior to boarding to avoid an altercation, shit airline decision making after the boarding process by being too cheap to bribe literally anyone off the plane, shit airline decision to have a "random" person forcibly removed. Yeah that's all bad but in the end it was the passengers fault for what happened? Ummm, yeah, that's shit logic. How did you just get from Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to conclusion Z with no dots connected?
I also call bullshit on "the computer" picking someone randomly to be removed. I will eat my hat if the computer really has a random function for this purpose, rather than one based on seniority (miles status) or yet another shit decision on part of the airline shifting a personal choice to that of the computer, i.e. lying.
I'm glad this guy stuck to his decision. Even better there's video for his future lawsuit. The only thing they understand is money. And he should take as much of their money as his lawyer can possibly extract out of the airline. It's the only way airline employes who made bad decisions at literally every step along this sequence will make adjustments. Had he merely complied, it would have secured the policies as just and reasonable in the eyes of the airline, even though they aren't just or reasonable.
When did mattsfrey say anything of the sort? Seems to me that he said that, essentially, the passenger made a bad situation worse. And I think that his claim is objectively true. The passenger would not leave the plane, even when told to do so by the police. Does that lead to physical force? In the real world, yes, it does. Does the passenger bear some (not all!) responsibility for that? Yes, he does.
Only in a fascist state.
The alternative is not anarchy. Peaceful resistance is a valid way to protest something that is wrong.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
(since no one else has said it yet)
These things could be so simple and self-correcting if everyone acted instead of screaming oh my god.
Sometimes you want news to be fake news.
It is annoying and terrible but it is ehat it is.
Booting people off a plane is pretty shitty behavior for an airline. It's bad customer service and they should dealt with it earlier than after boarding.
But if they have to do it, the passenger shouldn't be allowed to just refuse.
This guy did. And he had to get dragged off the plane. I don't really see an alternative other than just letting anyone willing to scream to stay and then boot off another customer with dignity.
This is shitty service by united escalated unreasonably by the passenger.
So, yes, the initial fault is United's. But there's blame enough to go around.
Note well: I am not saying that the cops are always right. I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. You can argue about whether that should be. Fine. I'm saying that it is that way, though, and you'd better plan on it being that way in your situation before you decide to ignore what the cops tell you to do.
> Because the cops told him to, that's why.
"I am not saying obey authority figures whenever they tell us to do something. Even though I said in the previous sentence, 'because the cops told him to, that's why'."
Your note completely and utterly contradicts your previous statement. There is no way to reconcile them.
That is, when the authority figures are morally in the wrong, you can make a case that the moral thing to do is to disobey them. But just in terms of the actual way things work in this less than perfect world, you'd better think seriously about the price you're going to pay for doing so. You can say "they shouldn't use force". Fine. But in the real world, they're going to use force.
So, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm speaking in two different senses. There's the ideal world, and there's the practical way things actually work. In the real world, if you disobey an order from the cops, it's going to hurt you, no matter how morally right you are.
Trying to solve business disputes by force, which is what the passenger did by refusing to leaves, is bad policy.
It's amazing how Americans can justify the most extreme violence for the most petty of reasons. This incident was absolutely meaningless _until_ this man had his face bloodied.
There were a thousand different options, besides force. Do that instead!
If I were in his position I'd quietly fume about it and United would get more comfortable about booting people who have boarded without repercussions. It's pretty rare that passengers' cases get brought to light so it's kind of refreshing.
If he had just left when the police arrived, as commenters above you are suggesting, then that would mean that the threat of violence was a successful solution to United's mistake, and we'd never have heard about it.
Otherwise this becomes might makes right.
And by I mean getting dragged off the plane. Some are spectulating he was beat off camera. Nothing would justify that.
But if you force someone to drag you off a plan, you are asking for the natural consequences.
At a particular moment it's $800 and voluntary. At the very next moment passenger is subject to forced removal.
This makes no sense. And I also see nothing in the contract of carriage that permits it.
The airline can deny boarding, but this person is physically inside the airplane having used his boarding pass for the purpose for which it exists: to facilitate boarding the plane. He is boarded. He was not in any way denied boarding. Rescinding that status is not listed at all in the contract of service.
Second, this is deeply uncivilized. The airline invited violence for a civil, non-criminal dispute resulting from their own planning negligence, and their own unwillingness to provide monetary compensation that anyone on board thought was reasonable.
And the police have liability here as well for agreeing to become violently involved in what is ultimately a monetary dispute.
Shame, shame, shame.
They needed the seats, fine. They asked for people to volunteer and no one did? Did they even offer maybe a 1st class on a flight taking off a few hours later? I can't imagine that out of more than 100 people they wouldn't find at least 4 interested in waiting in the airport to travel 1st class.
They handled that like bozos and I can absolutely see how a passenger chosen "at random" would make a fuss.
Apparently they did. The law is pretty clear on this. You can be refused a flight for this reason - United decided that they wanted the seat for their employee more than the passenger.
Once the passenger starts resisting, he/she should get removed by any means necessary, up to and including force. When people are acting unreasonably they should be prepared for unpleasant outcomes.
Some comments here talk about $800. I don't think that's equivalent to a 1st ticket, but I may be wrong.
In any case, they may have the law, but I still think it was very poorly handled.
I'm also curious to know what was their random process to select the 4 passengers.
Public opinion I think will also be very "unreasonable" regarding United in these circumstances.
It's lawful, and eventually you will be taken off the plane. The time to fight the battle is after you get off, not struggling against overwhelming odds and then getting charges piled on you.
Laws/rules don't change if people don't make a fuss about them being wrong.
This situation is akin to getting kicked out of a store that you were asked to leave.
Your rights and compensation are spelled out in the law dealing with situations like this. One person is not allowed to make these unilateral decisions because they feel as though the law is wrong in that time.
Laws and rules don't change if you act like an entitled drama queen that tries to bring race into the situation
I don't see United's contract of carriage rule 21 or rule 25 applicable. The passenger was granted boarding, not denied. FAR 91.3(a) doesn't apply, this has nothing to do with the operation of the aircraft. And federal regulation preempt state and local law, but you're welcome to try and convince me.
I see no contractual basis for involuntary removal after boarding is granted, other than being in breach of some other portion of the contract of carriage. The airline was basically in a position per their own contract, of auctioning off a seat on their own plane and they got pissy and called the police, which was improper, and then the police didn't bother to evaluate the appropriateness of removal.
Trespass doesn't apply, the passenger was authorized. Rescinding that state requires a basis in the contract, or FAA regulations or other law and so far the people engaging in victim blaming are providing a lot of jabber and no convincing explanations.
From united contract of carriage: UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons...:
C) Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control
H) Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: 3) Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.
Also, the distinction for boarding granting and non-granting is unclear to me. Is the fact that you receive a boarding pass indication that you're on the plane for good? Apparently not.
> people engaging in victim blaming
Assuming that the passenger was a victim. You should be blamed if you're at fault and unreasonable. If you're unhappy with the situation, deal with it later in the courts. Just like you can't talk your way out of a speeding ticket by "asserting your rights".
And in fact there's no oversold issue either, as it turns out. Exactly four paying passengers were removed for exactly four non-paying non-customer crew. That is not an oversold situation.
H) What safety issue applies here? This isn't a safety issue.
The contract has allowances in specific situations for passenger removal, not one of those allowances is applicable. You have to stretch way above and beyond the simple meaning of words in a dictionary to get where you're going.
> If you're unhappy with the situation, deal with it later in the courts. Just like you can't talk your way out of a speeding ticket by "asserting your rights".
That's asinine. Speeding tickets presuppose a civil or criminal offense from the outset. There is no civil, criminal or contractual offense at all on the part of the passenger/victim.
so instead, sell a couple of seats twice, and bet that not everyone will show up. if you're wrong and everyone shows up, you have to pay people extra to take another flight, but that apparently happens infrequently enough that overbooking makes money over the long term.
If they sold tickets up to the plane is full, no more: they would have to charge people for missing their flight since the seat left without them. While that might be legal (and moral?) it isn't something people like to happen to them, so the airlines sell just a little over so that they can tell the guy who missed his flight, "sorry, but you can use your ticket on the next flight so you are only out your time."
In short overbooking when it works right is a way to earn some goodwill from people who make a mistake.
When a business is acting in an abhorent, immoral, or unethical manner profit and greed are nearly always the fundamental reasons.
Depends on the ticket. For lower price tickets, generally speaking you don't get anything if you miss your flight. For Business and First class tickets you can generally re-book or get the ticket refunded if you miss your flight. There are also some insurance policies you can get which will refund at least most of your ticket if you miss your flight due to medical or family emergencies.
There are other reasons that this can happen. An aircraft change (due to maintenance issues, for example) might result in fewer seats being available. In this case, the airline needed to relocate some employees and seats weren't available. For the record, I believe they handled it very badly.
I've never seen EasyJet or Ryanair overbook flights (and they operate at WAY higher load factors that legacy airlines - Ryanair is up to 97% load factor on average).
Edit: looks like Ryanair actually doesn't overbook. "Ryanair is the only airline in Europe that does not overbook its flights; therefore Ryanair has eliminated the possibility of passengers being denied boarding due to overbooking."
Offer people compensation. Raise the offer until either (a) someone takes it, or (b) it's cheaper to send the employees via another route.
At some point the compensation isn't worth the profit margin of the other flight. They can just cancel it and let the flight crew go home.
why not? if the passenger in this situation was allowed to just refuse, Delta would have had to get its employees to another location via some other method, or delay/cancel whatever it was they were supposed to do when they go there.
why is that a worse universe than this one?
s/Delta/United/Actually, scratch that - the profession does not matter. Flying is an expensive form of travel and most people travelling do have a schedule to meet. Military can get very severely punished, businesspeople can lose critical deals, tourists can't get on connecting flights or get fired for being late back from vacation, and so on.
United just handled it completely wrong - instead of raising the offer as long as necessary, their staff decided that it would be simpler and cheaper to forcibly remove someone from the flight. It went wrong and now they must face the consequences.
I'm sure someone would have opted to delay their lives if the offer was $1k, $2k, hell $3k. Why does United get to economically benefit by getting their pilots to the next flight and profit from it, while inconveniencing someone else who has already purchased the flight? Sure, they're legally allowed to do what they did, but they didn't even bother to offer the maximum amount their own contract says to, so not sure why they would get any sympathy.
Also, it looks like United violated their own rules: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
You've skipped over the part where the people involved bashed his head against another seat, then dragged him down the aisle while concussed and limp.
That said, refusing to follow the instructions of a flight crew and creating a scene is not going to end well for you however convinced you are in the righteousness of your position. (I have been bumped off a flight after I was onboard and sitting down. It was years ago and I don't remember what the exact circumstances were if I ever knew.)
Consider: suppose a kid lays across your driveway and refuses to budge. Are you allowed to drive over the kid? After all, if everyone starts doing this, you will lose your job and can't feed your own family, right?
Well, no. You have to figure out a way. Take a deep breath and call their parents, get an Uber or whatever it takes.
The situation would be different if a random person was just asking you not to go. In that case, you could ignore them.
Because physical violence is different.
The cops were there, though, and were (at least tacitly) authorizing the guy to try to physically remove the passenger. Is that legal and/or moral? Or does it have to be a uniformed officer before it becomes legal and moral?
Having a cop makes it legal, but the moral question is the one we are arguing.
I think the cop has the responsibility to remove the kid without endangering the kid.
If my doctor was laying on my driveway I'd drag him off and then leave. And it's morally and legally right to do so.
You have a "contract of lying on the driveway" with him, you've granted him permission to lie on the driveway for the next 1.5 hours, and your contract doesn't list you changing your mind as a reason for rescinding that prior permission, nor has he breached the contract in a way that permits you to remove him.
You're welcome to point out where in the contract of carriage you're basing your opinion. I'm finding no justification.
In my experience, the airlines offer a decent incentive for taking a bump and they do this before boarding. I know delays have been crazy the past few days, so maybe people who were already delayed didn't want to wait any longer?
I wonder what kind of incentives were offered? You'd hope United would offer enough to get someone to volunteer, especially in cases like this that are so late into the boarding process. Why not just get a United official on the plane to start raising incentives until the $ amount makes someone bite.
Terms and conditions of the contract may be legal but it could very well result in incidents like this.
They wanted to get an airline crew to another city. Sounds like United fucked up, overbooked a flight, and didn't want to :
1. escalate compensation for passengers to get off the plane
2. arrange alternate transportation for their crew
So no, no the passenger was not unreasonable, this is the only type of thing that gets their leadership far above the rank and file to take enough notice to actually change policies to something reasonable which is this: pay enough for volunteers. You overbooked the flight, you pay the price, simple as that.
For the love of god, don't side with corporations where the ones setting the policies and profiting are far removed from both the enforcers of those policies, and the customers suffering at their hands. This is probably the number one source of social problems in the modern age: lack of individual accountability.