$800, not $8000.
First, I suspect the man-child doctor would have received the $800 if he had behaved like an adult. Second, even in the absence of an $800 windfall, the airline is required by law to compensate you according to strict rules, so the guy would have gotten something for being overbooked. IOW, yes, the law agrees that when an airline overbooks, they have to pay their customers for it.
Hardly. Ever miss a flight? It typically costs just $50-$100 to rebook on a later flight; you don’t have to book a whole new flight for full fare.
We can go that route, but then we’ll all be paying more for our flights, since there will invariably be someone who doesn’t show up, leaving an empty seat.
Any forceful police intervention carries higher odds of injury than one in which the subject is compliant. in the present case, the videos (there are at least a couple) show that the air marshals, after trying to talk the guy out of his seat (and presumably warning him in no uncertain terms that force would be used if he did not comply in a timely manner), tried to pull him from his seat. At first he was caught on the arm rest, but as soon as that was cleared they gave one final tug and he came flying across the aisle and his face landed on an armrest. I don’t think they were intentionally inflicting injury on him; it was just unfortunate timing of the obstructing armrest getting cleared, and one of the air marshals giving one last big tug on the guy that sent him flying.
IANAL, but I suspect he lacks the legal standing for a suit against United; the airline did absolutely nothing to him except order him to get off the plane. There were two randomly selected passengers who calmly left the plane immediately before this happened. Should they be allowed to sue too?
My apologies.
ISTM that we want airlines to overbook. It saves us all money. And in the extremely rare event that you get involuntarily bumped, you get compensated. Generally speaking, that’s how all contracts work in America. The other side can break the contract so long as they compensate you adequately. In this case, the compensation is laid out in some detail in advance.
The issue is just that some people place bigger reliance on arriving at a particular time, and so the ordinary compensation isn’t enough for them. But the way we solve this in every other context is not to make everyone else pay for the cost of these rare birds by prohibiting overbooking, but instead by making them pay more for the additional security they require. And that’s basically how it works now. People who really need to avoid getting bumped can check the Contract of Carriage and see who gets privileged (usually First Class fares).
I personally think “doctor who has patients to treat” vs “airline needed extra personnel transported so that other flights could take off” is roughly a tie. Both seem important.
I wouldn’t have resisted as hard as he did, but it’s hard to fault someone for speaking out on their own behalf. No one else is going to advocate for you. This guy is the “nevertheless, she persisted” of unruly airline passengers.
United may not lose any net business – I’m sure some people will be turned off, but there’s significant portion of the population attracted to authoritarianism, who might make up any lost revenue.
No, but when that person is beaten and dragged out, bleeding, while the other passengers are screaming, then the rules have failed.
Yes, that’s a reasonable characterization of what I said – “these rules are bad and should be changed” = “eliminate all rules”. Good job!
And if that had actually happened, you might have part of a point in your favor.
Surely you can understand that if airlines do not overbook to compensate for the expectation of no-shows, planes will routinely fly with empty seats that could have been filled. Would you have no objection to an across-the-board (say) 5-10% increase in the cost of airline tickets, just to avoid the (in my experience) extremely rare occasions where overbooking creates a problem that is not solved by auction?
Isn’t pretty much anyone allowed to sue? Such a lawsuit might not have a great chance at success, but that’s quite different.
As for whether a lawsuit from the brutalized passenger one would succeed, it would probably depend on the particulars of the law, and sequence of events (what orders the captain gave, for example). But who knows – IANAL.
Which word would you like to pedanti-cize about? Changed “beaten” to “manhandled” or whatever word best fits your nitpick, if you like.
Even if that had actually happened, I don’t agree.
A person is refusing to obey the lawful orders of flight crew and then law enforcement. How we reached that point is not really relevant to what ensues. The only rules that are under scrutiny at that stage are the training and rules that law enforcement follow to effect a forcible removal.
Yep, because being forced to check your bag is the same as being bloodied and dragged out by your armpits.
This has been an educational – I truly did not know this was an option for the airlines.
Like I said, I detest so many aspects of air travel, so I probably ought not have expressed my opinion. And my personal preferences do not seem well represented by many aspects of air travel.
But since you asked, yes, I would be fine with a 5-10% increase in prices. Flew 1st class the last 2 trips I took, so I could afford it. Of course, with the BS changes in pricing, I wonder how anyone could really tell if prices were 5-10% more or not! :rolleyes:
RP makes good points. The way for me to exercise my bargaining power is to choose not to fly whenever possible, and to pay for first class when I do.
I’m criticizing the entire situation, not just the violent ending. I think the violent ending demonstrates that the rules that governed the entire situation could be improved.
With this and the death of a dog in their care in February, they’ve lost at least one. *Dragging *someone?? I thought air marshalls were for security, not fixing airline negligence.
I think the video is not really sufficient to make a judgment about the forcible removal itself. If he was asked politely a couple of times over the course of 10 minutes, then suddenly dragged out kicking and screaming, then of course that’s a major problem and a lawsuit would be in order. But if this situation had dragged on for half an hour or more, during which time he was asked numerous times by the airline, and then by law enforcement, and it was clearly explained to him that leaving was not optional and that forcible removal would ensue, then the actions of law enforcement were probably reasonable. What’s the alternative? One stubborn man chosen by lottery refuses to leave, so we let him fly and move on to an 80-pound elderly woman who will probably be more likely to comply with lawful instructions?
I just don’t think the forcible removal is at all relevant to the issue of overbooking. There are various possible situations where forcible removal may be required, and the rules and training for that eventuality are a separate matter.
I’m not only criticizing law enforcement – I’m also criticizing the airline. Sure, it’s possible that this particular guy was hugely uncooperative to the point that it would have been impossible to peacefully coax him out of the airplane, and nothing they could have done would have helped. But I think it’s more likely that, even if he was somewhat uncooperative, better processes and procedures (at least, better than the ones described by witnesses in the articles about the incident) would increase the likelihood of resolving this situation without violence.
For example – instead of stopping at $800, cap the payment at $2K, or $4K (or higher). Chances are, there was a value that some passengers would have agreed to before they had to select passengers at random.
Personally, I’ve seen a hysterical and uncooperative passenger successfully calmed down by a flight attendant, after a less patient flight attendant was making the situation worse.
So they didn’t get the volunteers they needed, then how did they settle on this guy to be removed? He was badly dressed? Least attractive? Had breath issues? He was selected at random? Eeny, Meeny Miny, Mo? Why this one guy??
Me? I would have taken the money and the later flight. (I assume it was $800 AND the later flight) but that would be my choice. I can see why someone would make another choice. Why should he be forced to give up seat due to United’s incompetence?
Got any criticism for the passenger that decided that he didn’t have to follow rules he had already agreed to follow, then snuck back onto the plane?