Hacker News Reader

Comment by manacit | Hacker News Reader

Someone on a different message board put this situation very well: By the letter of the law, United was correct - morally, they were not. Their 'contract of carriage' allows them to IDB (Involuntary Deny Boarding) to passengers due to overselling, and bump people off at-will. Depending on how delayed the passenger would be to their final destination, they would owe compensation (up to a max of $1350) for the trouble.

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.

View on HN

> Their 'contract of carriage' allows them to IDB (Involuntary Deny Boarding) to passengers due to overselling, and bump people off at-will.

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.

If there's equipment waiting in Louisville, and another entire plane isn't going anywhere without them, that's how its justifiable. IDB means you can (legally) be physically removed from a flight.

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).

Still doesn't make the original flight "oversold". That's a very specific term in airline travel relating to ticketed seats sold for a flight, not a United staffing fuckup.

Edited: for clarity.

> Not a United staffing fuckup

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.

He's saying this IS a staffing fuckup, and the term "oversold" or "overbooked" is wrong here, as it relates to having too many tickets for a plane, not UA staff fucking up.

The point is that "oversold" is not the appropriate term.

It's still overselling. The maximum capacity is just not N but N - 4.

> 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.

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. And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements.

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, 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.

Or do what European airlines are mandated to do by law:

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.

Unless you have some bizarre demand curve due to extreme circumstances (famine, civil war, etc) there will always be a clearing price.

No need for violence.

It doesn't even have to be bizarre. I've been on flights where the entire flight is going to Mardi Gras, spring break in Daytona, or a cruise; when everyone is expecting to be somewhere, the clearing price can quickly exceed what you'd expect.

I suspect that in retrospect, United would gladly have paid $100,000 to avoid this fiasco.

Funny enough, it would've only cost United ~$10k to put their crew on a dedicated Embraer 145 commuter jet to Louisville from Ohare. Oops.

Yeah but that would affect profits. Much better to just rough the self-loading cargo up a bit and drag it off the plane. /s

> And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements.

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.

Honestly, I'm amazed that in a whole plane, no one jumped at $800. I was very, very, happy to take a $1,000 voucher for a flight to China that required me to take an extra flight (Dallas to Chicago then to Beijing as opposed to Dallas to Beijing) -- Then again, perhaps my day is less valuable than others'.

Maybe they should give people actual money instead of vouchers. With the few vacation days you get in the US they become really valuable.

It's part of the game I suppose. Few vouchers get used. Heck, I had to waste $90 of it buying a ticket I didn't use to extend it for another year.

Exactly.

> and have police waiting for the recalcitrant passenger at the destination airport

To do what, exactly?

Arrest him for trespassing and fine him for interfering with a member of the flight crew, apparently.

You are not trespassing when you are in an establishment, a venue, or even a plane having bought a valid ticket for said establishment, venue or plane.

Are you sure about that, if they inform you that they're revoking your ticket and telling you to leave? Passengers are required to obey the flight crew at all times.

"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

No, I'm not :)

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.

At the end of the day, the contract of carriage clauses are extremely broad and disadvantageous to the consumer. If the airline decides they want someone, or you, off the flight, there's actually very little recourse. Even the amount of time they can delay you without compensation during the day and with minimal compensation overnight is pretty absurd. That said, I'm not sure why they wouldn't just offer increasing compensation for those willing to bump to the next flight like usual. Four people will accept a few hundred to a thousand dollars to be bumped one flight.

A couple of points:

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.

Well said. I'd be curious to hear if there is a major airline that does not have the IDB policy.

There are some airlines that do not set out to oversell/overbook flights - JetBlue, for example. Even in a situation where a flight is only sold to capacity, there can be various reasons for people to be IDBed. Damaged seats, Equipment Changes (A321 -> A320 for example), etc.

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.

I would be extremely surprised as not having one is all downside to them.

The problem is that what's legal and what's ethical have diverged into two wholly different things. "The law" is now often used to aid in unethical activity, not to prevent it.

The other problem is what society views as ethical or moral is now subjective to each on a variety of different factors in this post post-modern society. There was once puritanical values, however despised they are by certain factions, which unified the "ethos" of the nation on what is and is not ethical. The civil rights movement came along and augmented that ethos for the better.

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"

The golden age of unified national consensus on what is ethical is a myth.

If anything, there's a long history of repressive regimes that attempt to force an ethics on society through religion. The ancient Romans even tried to enforce Christianity on their own people, replacing the official state religion, after decades of trying to stamp it out.

Ethics have always started and ended at the individual level. Even in societies dominated by communal thinking/living.

Airlines shouldn't be allowed to overbook. Causing people to miss their flights just because the company wanted to ensure 100% profitability per flight is unacceptable, and it shouldn't be legal (the overbooking, not the throwing off a plane for whatever other serious reason per se).

They'd have probably staying profitable if they couldn't overbook. Overbook it, sure, but offer escalating incentives to get people to voluntarily disembark. Physical removal is ridiculous and should be removed from the carrier's legal rights.

Putting profits ahead of anything else is what causes so much problems in the U.S. these days.

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-...

You mean to say it hasn't always been that way?

> Involuntary Deny Boarding

I don't have the contract at hand, but by the above wording, the man was already boarded...

From my understanding, you're correct. Deny Boarding can be avoided by checking in early. These people had boarded and the plane was full before the mistake was realized.

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...

I believe your understanding is incorrect - someone can be denied boarding regardless of when they have checked into the flight. If there are 100 seats, they may sell 105 tickets and permit 105 people to check in - if they cannot find 5 volunteers they will have to IDB 5 passengers.

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.

Reading through the rules, it would appear that you are correct, though it looks like checking in earlier should make it more unlikely "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."

I'm not sure the United Conditions of Carriage are really relevant here anyway - if United were to decide to violate their own conditions of carriage, the worst penalty a court would likley invoke would be to consider the whole contract null and void, awarding that passenger a full refund, and maybe paying for a hotel (damages).

They could very well, unless otherwise restricted by law, apply punative damages as well as pain and suffering beyond that.

For reference, section 25 of their contract of carriage: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

The point is that if you're late at the gate (after the 30 minute cut-off, say), then they are under no obligation to let you on the plane, and do not have to compensate you under IDB rules.

Too bad, I say. If we're going by the exact letter of the law on what is/isn't acceptable then the mistake started and ended on the airline side.

If the airline makes a mistake and realizes that mistake too late, they should take the hit themselves, not punish an innocent passenger for their own mistake.

Airlines should make a better effort to avoid overbooking. If they can get away with this kind of despicable behaviour, they'll never improve.

> they should take the hit themselves, not punish an innocent passenger for their own mistake.

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.

That just means they should plan better. It's no excuse for intentionally screwing over their paying passengers.

Nobody disputes that better planning would be better, or that they should not have let everyone on board.

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".

What they're entitled to, is a seat on the plane that they booked and paid for. And whatever the problems that this airline might run into if they don't do this, they're not taking into account the problems they're causing for others by doing this. The guy was a doctor who had to be in a hospital the next morning. What if a patient dies because of this?

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.

Thanks to overbooking, flying is cheaper and more efficient. I do not think there is a need to avoid it.

Yes, he should sue the bejeezus out of them.

Whoever decided to force the guy off the plane is an idiot. They could have simply raised the comp for volunteering slowly until someone took the money.

But that costs money immediately. Forcing someone off the plane and causing a huge HR mess only costs money long-term, and it doesn't come out of my budget, so why should I care?

Good point. Whoever set the incentives badly and set some arbitrary cap at $1350 should be fired.

The cap really isn't being explained properly, it's actually almost assuredly not relevant to this guy's situation.

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 :)

This is incorrect

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

Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

That would be a regulator or Congress. The airline would set no cap, if they could get away with macing you to get you off the airplane, they would. "Next time, just get off the plane when we ask the first time."

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.

> That would be a regulator or Congress.

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.

That's just IDB coverage, mandated by the FAA. They don't get a choice here. You will find the exact same penalties and limits for all airlines.

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.

You're assuming that low level airline employees even realized they were rolling dice.

They were told to save cash, and by golly, they saved that cash.

No, that's US law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

Maybe I'm thinking of baggage. I know there's a limit on liability applied by law somewhere.

That's the maximum amount that they're required to offer by law. They're welcome to voluntarily exceed that cap.

I dream of a world where bump compensation is unlimited. The same people who now churn miles to fly everywhere for free would then start strategically chasing storms to get bumped from flights and make tens of thousands of dollars in compensation.

We have mileage runs and mattress runs already; why can't we have bump runs as well?

Someone get Carl Weathers on the phone!

The bump fee only works if it's not weather related. Mechanical and overbooking only. Oh, and pilot scheduling mistakes.

Today's cancellation is weather-related. But when you get bumped from the make-up flight tomorrow because of overcrowding, it's an operational issue.

It's a multi-day play.

Because you will get fired if you manage your reports to behave in this way.

According to Reddit hearsay they offered increasing amounts up to $800 but no one budged. One passenger offered to leave for $1500 and the crew laughed. I'm assuming there's corporate policy that puts a maximum cap on compensation.

Any maximum cap is ridiculous. Let the free market reign! The flight itself represents many tens of thousands of dollars of fares.

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.

Delta paid more than $1000 to passengers in a similar situation: https://consumerist.com/2017/04/10/one-family-earned-11000-b...

There is. Delta says $600 for a 4-hour forced rebook and up to $1200 or $1400 for longer. Can't remember the exact amount.

Ah wait, I think it's some formula based on miles and delay.

Regardless, it's some arbitrary cap for no good reason.

I also got laughed at when I tried to negotiate up an offer of $1,000 to switch flights.

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.

...the crew laughed.

I guess we should film everything while traveling. Editing the laughter together with the dragging and screaming would be golden...

The laughter might be the most ridiculous part of this. If offered them to get off for 10k in actual money and would have found that perfectly reasonable given the situation they were in. The laughter shows that they somehow set themselves as above the market and the passengers at their mercy. They technically are, but see where it got United.

> film everything

Ubiquitous surveillance of citizens is bad. Ubiquitous surveillance by citizens is good.

For some reason it looks a little bit off considering that he was already boarded and in his seat. I can understand the reasoning if it is executed at gate or check-in. It happened to me, and while frustrating, you comply.

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.

But if it was a last-minute thing, what happens to checked baggage, which may have already been loaded onto the plane by that point?

Does this imply you're much more likely to get picked for last-minute eviction if you didn't check anything in?

No, they can re-route the baggage for you if you're going on another flight. If you're not flying they remove it (which can significantly delay takeoff causing a fine to the airline if their stats drop outside of standards).

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.

Pretty sure assault and battery is not legal.

Technically perhaps but they never do anything if it's done by the police.

Well if the contract and the law says they can involuntarily remove passengers from the plane, then it is necessarily legally permissable for United to assault/battery their passengers. Whether or not that is morally the right thing to do, or whether that is a wise business move in this case is a separate question (probably answer is no). Hypothetically they could legally shoot their customers if battery was not enough force if the contract stipulates so.

Illegal things don't become legal just because they're in a contract. Otherwise, people who can't pay credit card debt would be under the whip in work camps.

Think the solution is to outlaw IDB for overbooking. This is similar to letting airlines sit a plane on the tarmac for hours with all the passengers stewing inside. Once they had to start paying penalties they quit doing that.

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.

Legally - is this considered assault?

No. It's a federal crime to disobey instructions of the flight or the captain. If they ask you to leave the aircraft you're required to leave. If you refuse and need to be physically removed, tough.

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.

I'm not trying to rationalize anyone's actions here, but if the captain told you to kill another passenger, that is not within his right of removal of choice for individual. i.e. The captain is only allowed to remove choice for an individual when the group is threatened, given they are in charge, by law, of making choices for group (perhaps for the reason of or related to in-flight matters).

Edit: changed he to they.

That's actually not true (afaik). Certainly the command to kill another passenger is unlawful, and you won't carry it out.

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.

> That's actually not true

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.

I think at this point we'd need a lawyer to actually tell us the law here. I agree with you in that there should be a rational reason to remove someone. I simply disagree that there must be legally speaking.

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.

The captain has extremely broad latitude over who is allowed to be on the flight. He doesn't need to give a reason for kicking someone off.

I said absolutely nothing about removing anyone from a flight in my first comment.

Are you referring to something other than FAR 91.3(a)? Because that pertains to the pilot in command being the final authority over aircraft operations. Removing a docile passenger who is merely violating the contract of carriage is not what that regulation has in mind.

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.

Was the person doing the assaulting federal law enforcement? Was he arrested? I don't think either of these are true. So, I don't think this is how any of this actually works.

It turns out that airline crew have infinite powers on their own planes (well...nearly). They can actually thrown someone off a plane on a whim. Source: I saw this happen last year.

Right, you can "throw" people off a plane. But if you do so in a manner that is totally illegal, you have still broken a law in doing so. That would be my point.

If they were not allowed to use force then they would in fact only have the right to "request" people leave the plane. Throwing off implies at least the option to use force.

But the point is the pilots have legal authority to throw people off the plane. Therefore it is tautologically legal.

It would have to go before a judge. It could be a case of excessive force. Was there something else they could have done rather than end up with him getting knocked out and a bloody nose. As someone else mentioned it would be brought against the policeman in this case (or authority they work for).

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...

Paradoxically, I'd argue that many knowledgeable people/frequent flyers will understand and excuse United's behaviour, but they haven't flown United for years, because they're so crap.

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'd venture to guess likely not at first glance - the guy was trespassing at that point and refused to move. The only alternative from that limited perspective is use of force.

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.

> You can't just refuse to leave an aircraft when instructed to do so by the crew.

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.

Depends on the lawyer, if you can get it before a judge and judge/jury. It's unlikely since United has very expensive lawyers I'm sure.

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.

I don't think that matters in this case. When (not if) this guy sues, United is going to pay a huge settlement (with a gag clause) to make this go away as quickly as possible. They do not want this going to court with weeks of media attention, even if their case is ironclad.

No, but it might be grounds for a suit against the police.

The passenger was attacked by a random big dude in blue jeans. Sure there were uniforms looking on with approval, but this guy looked like a baggage handler not police?

Sky marshal? Doubt some random just decided to drag someone off a plane.

Watch the video. The guy is big, but he's not acting like police, and he doesn't have any sort of uniform. The two useless cops are just looking on like useless cops do.

I watched the video. Sky marshals purposefully wear normal clothes, so they blend in with the rest of the passengers on the flight. Having them wear uniforms would kind of defeat the purpose.

The cops are likely waiting until the passenger is off the plane to take him into custody.

I suppose he could have identified himself and displayed a badge before the video started, but nothing about this guy said "police" to me. My experience with airport police says that taking the guy into custody was the last thing the actual police wanted to do. That suspicion is confirmed by the fact that after getting dragged off, the passenger reboarded the plane. Justifiably, real police don't consider themselves airline employees. They look down on both airline security and TSA.

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.

Hard to say. Which laws continue to be enforceable against airport police if there's an insinuation that you may have been difficult?

Or trespassing? Law is fun right?

Does this mean they can still bump people off the flight at-will even though he already boarded the flight?

Then the law is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com