United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight

[UltraVires]

@Crazyhorse

Actually that isn’t entirely correct. Analogies are always dangerous that way. In some states landlord/innkeeper laws might prevent you from being able to legally evict the person in that hypothetical situation.

But that technicality aside, there is nothing wrong with your point because you used the term “reasonable force.” Dragging a man bloodied and battered through the aisle of an airliner because some employees needed the seats or the airline would lose money wasn’t reasonable under the circumstances. Thus the public outrage, the airline’s apology, and the suspension of the police officer involved.

Right, forget landlord/tenant statutes.

However, for the second paragraph, it matters not the reason why they wanted to remove the passenger. Whether it was for their employees, or for sick children needing emergency organ transplant surgery in Louisville, or the fact that the person in charge thought the passenger was horribly ugly, United still has the right to control its property and order the passenger off the plane. The passenger must comply and then pursue his remedies in court.

If the passenger refuses, then reasonable force can be used to remove him regardless of the underlying reason for the removal. Now, I’ll admit that I haven’t seen the video and if the force was more than reasonably needed to remove him from the plane, then that is a different story.

[Crazyhorse]

@UltraVires

However, for the second paragraph, it matters not the reason why they wanted to remove the passenger. Whether it was for their employees, or for sick children needing emergency organ transplant surgery in Louisville, or the fact that the person in charge thought the passenger was horribly ugly, United still has the right to control its property and order the passenger off the plane. The passenger must comply and then pursue his remedies in court.

If the passenger refuses, then reasonable force can be used to remove him regardless of the underlying reason for the removal. Now, I’ll admit that I haven’t seen the video and if the force was more than reasonably needed to remove him from the plane, then that is a different story.

But the reason does matter. If the airline said there has been a bomb threat and we need you to deplane immediately it would be very different than saying we’re so sorry but we have to ask you to get off the plane so this employee can have your seat.

That error was 100% on the airline staff. But they can’t control the actions of the Chicago police once they board the plane and it was one of three police officers who used excessive force. At that point the question wasn’t why he wouldn’t leave or why the airline wanted him to, or who was right. It raised a new question which was why three police officers couldn’t remove a medium sized man already known to be completely unarmed without bashing his head into an armrest and dragging him out on his back. The police department has suspended one officer and said they don’t condone his actions so clearly experts in what is reasonable force believe this was unreasonable.

Finally, yeah sure the guy should have just said OK I’ll see you in court, but his error in not doing so doesn’t absolve the airline for creating the problem or the police for using excessive force.

[Smapti]

@Kolak_of_Twilo

Hundreds of thousands are undoubtedly bumped annually. At the gate. Before boarding.

Thus no “auction” required. Simply, “Sorry Mr/Ms Smapti, this flight is overbooked. Here’s a voucher for $300 and a coupon for a free coffee at Starbucks. We will need to put you on a later flight.” Something like this is what happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.

That’s not what was proposed. What was proposed that the airlines shouldn’t be able to bump you involuntarily, and if you don’t like the price they’re offering, you turn them down until you get what you want, with no upper limit.

[rat_avatar]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Why Delta Air Lines Paid Me $11,000 Not To Fly To Florida This Weekend

Delta actually offers VISA gift cards, and they seem to be willing to pay a lot more than United was to get volunteers. The $800 offered by United is significant I think because it is about how much they would have to pay if they forced someone off the plane. So United is not willing to offer more for a volunteer than they would have to pay if they violently “re-accomodated” the passenger off the plane with a bloody face.

Exactly, UA offered a e-voucher is a PITA while I cannot find a recent Terms and Conditions link here are some that I am reading off of an old voucher pamphlet from 2012.

[ul]
[li]1 year expiration[/li][li]Subject to blackout dates[/li][li]Cannot be applied to International flights[/li][li]Does not apply towards airport fees, taxes etc…[/li][li]The trips you can use them for cannot be upgraded[/li][li]Is not valid for United-marketed code share and Star Alliance flights.[/li][li]All flights have to be booked on united.com which does not have common discount fares.[/li][li]Maximum number of users per certificate: One[/li][li]Maximum number of passengers per itinerary: One[/li][/ul]

This list is far from complete too.

I am betting if they had offered a $500 check which is in their CoC they would have found willing volunteers.

My voucher was $200 and I could never use it as every place I wanted to actually fly were code share routes.

UA has made it a pain in the ass to use their vouchers, this is part of the reason that I even care about this thread and a big reason I will never volunteer for anything but cash.

[pulykamell]

@Smapti

That’s not what was proposed. What was proposed that the airlines shouldn’t be able to bump you involuntarily, and if you don’t like the price they’re offering, you turn them down until you get what you want, with no upper limit.

Even if I know there’s no upper limit, I’m gonna take the lowest offer that is worth my while. Why wouldn’t I? I don’t want somebody else to snag it from under me, so my self-interest (greed) would compel me to take the lowest offer (or near enough) that is worth my while.

[Czarcasm]

Is there any footage that shows what happened when he was cut? Was he just jerked out of his seat and smashed into the seat, or did he thrash around in that confined area?

[rat_avatar]

@Czarcasm

Is there any footage that shows what happened when he was cut? Was he just jerked out of his seat and smashed into the seat, or did he thrash around in that confined area?

The cut was from the security personal throwing him into the opposite row head first. I had a youtube link that synced all of the cell phone videos at once a few pages back that made that clear.

All angles of Doctor dragged from United Airlines flight

[D_Anconia]

@rat_avatar

It is still the regional branch of United Continental Holdings just as the guy who connects your cable is still “Comcast” etc…

Cite that Republic Airline is a branch of United Continental Holdings?

[Giles]

@D_Anconia

Cite that Republic Airline is a branch of United Continental Holdings?

It doesn’t need to be a branch: it just needs to be an agent of United. Operating a flight as “United Express” would seem to make it and its employees agents of United Airlines.

[rat_avatar]

@D_Anconia

Cite that Republic Airline is a branch of United Continental Holdings?

Republic Airlines is an outsourced contract provider for United Continental Holdings, I didn’t claim that Republic Airline was a “branch” of them.

But note the regional fleet numbers here.

http://ir.united.com/company-information/company-overview

And how Republic Airlines is DBA for United Express.

http://av-info.faa.gov/detail.asp?DSGN_CODE=R61A&OPER_FAR=121&OPER_NAME=REPUBLIC+AIRLINE+INC

But I really don’t want to spend the time explaining the post deregulation airline industry to you. I would recommend google but the basic concept is that you have an affiliated airline under contract with a major airline operating under the major airline’s brand name.

[rat_avatar]

Maybe it will be useful to think of it this way, If you wanted to grab a Big Mac in your town would you say that you are driving to D Lark Inc or McDonalds? A franchise is not exactly the same but when you buy a Big Mac you are dealing with someone operating as a DBA under contract. The nature of that contract not the same but you don’t blame D Lark Inc when you find kangaroo meat in your hamburger.

[Lord_Feldon]

@rat_avatar

Maybe it will be useful to think of it this way, If you wanted to grab a Big Mac in your town would you say that you are driving to D Lark Inc or McDonalds? A franchise is not exactly the same but when you buy a Big Mac you are dealing with someone operating as a DBA under contract. The nature of that contract not the same but you don’t blame D Lark Inc when you find kangaroo meat in your hamburger.

But if the employees of D Lark Inc are a big part of the supposed problem, and D Lark Inc also owns the Wendy’s in town, would it really be helpful to direct people to start eating at Wendy’s? I mean, I know lots of people would do this, but I’m not sure it has any meaning other than recreational outrage.

I only mentioned Republic originally because people kept talking about “United” needing the crew members in Louisville, and “United” needing to have alternate arrangements available to get them there. That part of the whole saga is, AFAIK, entirely on Republic.

[rat_avatar]

@Lord_Feldon

But if the employees of D Lark Inc are a big part of the supposed problem, and D Lark Inc also owns the Wendy’s in town, would it really be helpful to direct people to start eating at Wendy’s? I mean, I know lots of people would do this, but I’m not sure it has any meaning other than recreational outrage.

I only mentioned Republic originally because people kept talking about “United” needing the crew members in Louisville, and “United” needing to have alternate arrangements available to get them there. That part of the whole saga is, AFAIK, entirely on Republic.

As noted above this is mostly an issue with UA’s policies imposed by the contract but I can’t argue a claim that I didn’t make.

DBA has a risk to a brand, note that this story says “mcdonalds” and that is a franchise which is a far looser coupling of responsibilities.

McDonald's boss and staff caught on camera brutally battering 'racist' customer

But lets be clear, regional airlines in the DBA role mostly exist so that they can pay workers at a lower rate. As an example the average base compensation for a mainline UA pilot is ~$120,406 when a UA express pilot is probably making $20,000-$40,000. The mainline unions have scope clauses in their contracts to limit the traffic on these regional providers.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

We’re talking about a situation where this sort of “auction” would be happening hundreds of thousands of times a year. It only takes one planeload of sufficient stubborn people to hold out for immense sums before it goes viral and everyone realizes they can do it.

So find a single auction in the real world that has ever worked like this. A single one.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

So find a single auction in the real world that has ever worked like this. A single one.

I’m not aware of any auction in the real world that works the way that has been proposed.

There’s probably a very good reason for that - real human beings aren’t going to think to themselves “Well, I could retire here and now if I let him keep going, but a week’s pay and a free hotel is good enough!”

[Velocity]

@Smapti

We’re talking about a situation where this sort of “auction” would be happening hundreds of thousands of times a year. It only takes one planeload of sufficient stubborn people to hold out for immense sums before it goes viral and everyone realizes they can do it.

Do you know how difficult it is to get people to be unanimous about ANYTHING? You talk about “only one planeload of people” as if that’s a trivial thing. That’s like, 100 people and it only takes one person - ONE out of a hundred - to “go selfish” and snatch up the low-dangling fruit of $1,000 or something, and then the dam breaks and other passengers will immediately follow suit for fear of being left out.

Even the UN Security Council of just 5 nations can barely be unanimous about anything, or the SCOTUS of 9 justices, and you think you can get 100 passengers - of varying backgrounds, personalities, and mindsets - unanimous?

Finally, only one or a few out of the hundred passengers will get to snatch that “immense sum.” Why would the other passengers cooperate, when 95-99% of them will miss out on that big payday? It’s not like, “If we ALL hold out together, then we ALL win the jackpot!”

[Highpockets]

@Smapti

I’m not aware of any auction in the real world that works the way that has been proposed.

There’s probably a very good reason for that - real human beings aren’t going to think to themselves “Well, I could retire here and now if I let him keep going, but a week’s pay and a free hotel is good enough!”

If the price got to be high enough, surely the airline could just charter another plane, or find seats on another airline to transport the passengers. This notwithstanding that it is absurd to think that no one would raise their hand to accept compensation once the numbers started approaching those heights.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

I’m not aware of any auction in the real world that works the way that has been proposed.

There’s probably a very good reason for that - real human beings aren’t going to think to themselves “Well, I could retire here and now if I let him keep going, but a week’s pay and a free hotel is good enough!”

Any auction could go “badly” the way you suggest. Why haven’t they?

[iiandyiiii]

This silliness about auctions is not even worth discussing. A group of hundreds of people will never just so happen to be thinking the same thing – at some point one of them will say “yes” as the money goes up, and everyone else will get nothing. They’ll all realize this possibility, thus the motivation for all of them to say “yes” as soon as they feel the price is worth it, so they can be the one that benefits.

That’s how auctions (or, indeed, wages in a capitalistic economy) work and have always worked.

[TokyoBayer]

@ShadowFacts

And yet, there are still people in this thread doggedly defending their actions. At what point do you guys take a step back and say, “Maybe I should re-think this?”

On this board? Hahahahahahahaha.

@Beren_Erchamion

Where the hell are you getting this nonsense from?

Quoting the relevant sentences.

@TokyoBayer

As I posted above, they had the legal requirement to provide proper compensation which they did not do. The various legal talking heads are shaking their heads about that.

It’s trivial to attempt to ridicule others on a message board, however, people like you who assume that they can ignore what the courts think do so at their peril.

The question not what you believe is proper compensation, but what the courts will rule it is. The courts don’t give a shit what you feel is proper. They care about contracts, contract law, laws, and Federal regulations.

You may believe that an $800 voucher is proper, but the FAA doesn’t. See my earlier post. It’s $1,350 in cash if that is what the bumped passenger wants. There’s a world of difference there.

Once the airline unilaterally decided to breach the contract, they had a legal obligation to provide proper compensation. They attempted to circumvent such duty.

Anyone with any sort of business law education will understand how courts are not happy with unilateral breaches of contracts. One of the reasons for the FAA putting limits on the amount of compensation for overbooking is to prevent the courts from awarding even more money.

Under the law, parties often cannot unilaterally decide how much compensation they will give and in cases such as this where there is such a strong tilt in the balance of power, the courts will often side with the little guy.

This was not a case of United being unable to fulfill its contractual obligations because of inclement weather or mechanical trouble. It sold seats to people then yanked them.

People who have actual business experience can understand that.

As I stated, the doctor was wrong to refuse to leave his seat. However, United was already in the wrong by attempting to get by on the cheap. We all see how much that cost them.

People with business experience know that good will goes a hell of a long way to solving problems, and United had lost any such good will by their heavy-handed approach to the problem, as many of the passengers stated in interviews.

This was even before they called in in the goon squad to enforce their poor decisions.

@CairoCarol

Somewhere, John Nash is quietly weeping.

+1