Well, normally they do this at the gate, where it doesn’t matter if the “victim” is unwilling. The problem with doing it on the plane is that, as airlines know very well from experience, some people are basically toddlers and they need a little time and space to process unpleasant information. If they get told at the gate that sorry, they’re not flying on this flight, they can stamp their feet and say “no” a few times and it doesn’t matter because the gate isn’t going anywhere else. But in this situation, the airline fucked up and put this guy in a situation where he had no time to process the information and no space in which to cool down. Is he entirely blameless in that? Of course not. But people are people and a big part of an airline’s job is keeping people out of situations where they know from experience that stuff will escalate.
You know, just proclaiming “Strawman” doesn’t automatically make you correct.
Lets see you said:
Which is a a strawman, canceled to to weather is Force Majeure, and has different CONTRACTUAL obligations and this was not a weather event, this was an involuntary bump due to overbooking
I provided cites that are up page that describe in exact detail what their legal obligation is for compensation in that case. You ignored that evidence to posit an argument that I wasn’t making which is guess what…a strawman.
UA had the choice of having security remove the passenger or allowing him to disobey their legally permissible request. They chose to have security to remove them despite industry guidelines and while trying to offer a less than fully documented compensation options.
Maybe it may be useful to google “common carrier” and read about the legal implications of the term?
UA caused this problem, and they dealt with it in the worst way possible and their continuing responses to it are also in poor form. They are way down in customer satisfaction ratings this year and this is not an isolated event.
The passenger reacted poorly but it was not his actions that cause the event to happen. It was fully in UAs power to prevent, or mitigate the effects of decisions and events fully under their control.
And just to stop the unsubstantiated claim that this is not “a law” relating to compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.
14 CFR 250.5
Jesus. When the guy said he was a doctor with patients to see the next day they should have moved on to another randomly selected passenger. United could follow up and if he is not actually a doctor could put sanctions against him for future travel. To forcibly remove a doctor with patients to see from a flight so that air hosts make their next flight is ridiculous.
United is fucked on this one. Czarcasm is also fucked on this one.
Czarcasm just out of interest, do you think your support of the force used by the police/airline is consistent with your “passivism”?
It’s 300 miles and the only solution the company can find is to demean, injure and ultimately brutalise customers?
Was it really such a giant leap to consider a taxi ride for the company employees once the company had screwed up their numbers on boarding.
I would never use that company.
The local news here in Seattle (KIRO) just interviewed an aviation lawyer who said she was “astonished” at what happened and saw quite a number of violations. The specific one she mentioned was that being forcefully removed to make room for crew is a serious violation (she didn’t specify a violation of what) and is different than being removed for other passengers. She said the NTSB will be involved.
That’s actually the part of his behavior that ticked me off the most. The idea that the airline should only do things that have negative consequences for those other peons and not great and good people like him.
And I’m not sure it would make anybody happy if airlines started ranking passengers’ personal lives and deciding which were the most worthy. It will just cause another scandal-of-the-day tomorrow.
You have to realize you’re dealing with people who seem to think that the police should never ever use physical force under any circumstances ever. If the person refuses to comply after being politely asked to do so, they ought to have no other recourse than to ask him politely again. And if his response is to pull a gun and shoot them in the head; well, they’re cops, they knew that was part of the job when they took it, we shouldn’t shed any tears over it.
Expedia informs me that a flight this Sunday from Chicago to Louisville, one-way, will run me $220.
If I were booking it for a Sunday next month, it’d run me as little as $99.
I don’t understand the logic of these posts.
What is so bad about letting the market work? The airlines use market principles to their advantage when they decide to oversell their flights, and they are supported in this by the federal government. Why not force them to abide by the same market principles when their overselling results in having to kick people off the flight?
The practicality argument is plain stupid. They already had a small auction, offering first $400 and then $800. How much longer would it have taken to go up until one more person accepted the offer? Maybe five minutes? Less time than it took to use the computer to find another passenger and kick him off the plane.
You say that “At some point there’s got to be a final offer,” and that’s true. But the final offer should be one that a customer finds acceptable, not simply one that the airline finds convenient.
These articles make the point nicely:
The federally-mandated compensation limits did nothing here except help the airline screw over the passenger. They knew they didn’t have to offer him market value for his seat, because the federal government had already stepped in and placed a limit on how much they would have to compensate him for a forced removal.
Sorry, but no.
I understand that doctors help people in a variety of ways, but unless he’s actually performing life-saving emergency surgery as soon as he steps off the flight, his life and his priorities are no more important than anyone else’s. Plenty of doctors see patients for all sorts of reasons. If I schedule a check-up with my primary care physician, and they have to cancel the appointment, it’s no more or less inconvenient for me than if my mechanic cancels my oil change appointment.
If there’s a problem in this case, it’s the legal and regulatory environment in which airlines are allowed to overbook and deny boarding; it’s not the fact that a doctor missed his flight.
A doctor has a higher likelihood of having patients who are more than inconvenienced, however.
You do make a good case for why they shouldn’t target a mechanic, though. Find someone where the only person inconvenienced will be him.
Of course, this would sort itself out if you stick with the market. The people who take the offer would naturally be the ones who believe they are least inconvenienced. It gets rid of the airline making that decision.
But, if they’re going to insist on forcing people off, I do think skipping the doctor would have been the better call. The guy being a doctor is definitely part of what is fueling the reaction.
This is a huge minefield with no apparent benefits for the airline. Interviewing passengers until one is deemed sufficiently worthless enough to be bumped sounds like something that will take a long time and piss a lot of people off.
I mean, can you imagine what would happen the first time they decided that, say, a cop had the lowest priority occupation on the flight? Talk about social media outrage.
You have to realize you’re dealing with people who seem to think that the police should violently drag the elderly from plane seats, knock them unconscious, drag them off the plane and then obviously do their jobs so well that a senior citizen that is bleeding can escape back to the plane.
See I can play the random ad hominem game too!!!
Except that mine seems to match the available evidence better.
And yes, using that much force on a senior citizen who hadn’t escalated past verbal complaints is using too much force. Police are a lot smarter than you give them credit…they are fully capable of understanding more levels of force than just verbal commands and full on jack booted violence against a senior citizen.
“Do you know what it’s like to fall in the mud and get kicked… in the head… with an iron boot?”
It would be interesting if later we found out the dr was to perform life saving surgery on the united ceo family member.
So you’ve deemed the legally-mandated requirement of 400% of the fare to be too low.
At what point should the airline be obliged to stop before they start involuntarily deplaning people. 800%? $2000? $10,000? $500,000? Ten million dollars and a 25% stake in the company?
At what point do you imagine the airline is allowed to stop saying “Please leave now or I will be forced to ask you again”?
How about offering money vs. a voucher, which fits their policy?
Once again the overbooking is 100% the fault of UA, and no one else. There are no acts of god, weather or other issues.
They were only looking to maximize profits.
First of all, even giving each deplaning passenger $10,000 would probably be cheaper to United Airlines than the PR backlash that it’s received so far, even if the scandal ultimately only reduces United’s ridership by 1%.
Second of all, passengers would be taking the offer long before it reaches, even, say, $2,000. It’s a short flight that cost only about $200-300 at first, and passengers would be all over an $800 or $1,300 offer before someone else snatches the deal.