The distinction I’ve read is that the aircrew was trying to accommodate non-revenue passengers and the rules about overbooking don’t give priority to non-revenue passengers over those who have paid for their seats. (And actually, there was a controversy a few weeks ago when United denied boarding to two girls who were wearing leggings, because they were flying as non-revenue passengers and therefore subject to a dress code that the general public is not.)
And now I’m finding a site that suggests that an airline employee who is flying because they need to get to another assignment is not considering “non-revenue”.
Certainty? This is not clear. There are DOT regulations concerning that and the DOT is investigating. DOT regs will overule this silly idea of “trespassing”.
Do you agree that Airlines are regulated by the Federal Government, under the DOT?
I am not certain if United violated the law. I am saying that it appears so. In any case, those who base their argument that United was in the right - legally speaking- *may well be wrong. *
Also, the Regs say they must offer cash to those who dont volunteer, and I can’t see where they did that. The crew must also read the regs to the passenger, which it does not seem they did. The regs also talk about “denying boarding” as opposed to “deplaning” .
What I’m wondering is who fucked up here? Who chose not to exceed $800 in compensation for voluntarily giving up the seat? Who chose not to just move onto another passenger when this one resisted/refused? Who chose to involve the police? Were they following policy in each of these decisions? Were these decisions made by the cabin crew? The captain of the flight? The person in charge at the airport? Or was it someone at corporate?
Regarding the compensation issue, i’d be willing to bet that they were following corporate policy.
As i said earlier in the thread, federal regulations cap the compensation for involuntary bumping at $1300 per person. And it also caps it at 4x the cost of the seat. Whichever is lower. So, for a short flight like Chicago to Louisville, it could be that the compensation United would have been required to pay was not much more than $800, depending on how much the passenger paid for his ticket.
Why would a company offer more than that if they don’t have to? They can offer, say, $1500 or $2000 to get someone to move voluntarily, or they can just kick the person off and pay the federally-mandated compensation. In this sense, the company is acting rationally when they choose not to increase the offer.* And it’s why, in my opinion, the regulatory environment and the cap on compensation is the real problem here.
As for why they didn’t move on to another passenger, that is fraught with all sorts of other issues for the flight crew. If they do that, it undermines their authority, and suggests to the passengers that the way to get what you want is to simply refuse to comply. Whether or not we like the rules, and whether or not we think the crew acted smartly, the fact is that passengers are supposed to obey crewmember instructions on the plane. I’ve been ragging on United, and on the regulatory environment, for much of this thread, but i still think the guy should have disembarked voluntarily, and this goes double for when the security people arrived. Even as a matter of plain old self-preservation.
Of course, given the hit to United’s market cap and its reputation, the move doesn’t look quite so god in hindsight, but as a general policy it makes economic sense.
I really didn’t have any terribly strong feelings about this incident, as I already thought pretty poorly about air travel and carriers. Mainly thought it an amusing instance of corportate PR cluelessness. And I highly doubt this will have any significant lasting effect on UA.
-What damages will the good Dr get - if he prevails? Will that be more than a drop in the bucket for a company as big as UA?
-Will there be some new regulations re: bumping/overbooking? Do you really think they will change any other than the most outrageous situations?
-How many people are going to refuse to fly UA, if they search a proposed trip and UA has the best prices/times?
I remember some time a few years back, after an airline was having labor disputes. The gate and plane staff were outrightly HOSTILE to passengers. Not sure it made things all that much worse among lining up and taking off your shoes, being cramped into coach… And today, I can’t even remember the name of the airline. Possibly American?
This is just a social media blip, and will have little lasting effect on anything. It will fade as soon as the next topic bubbles up.
The plane must actually be overbooked ( and it seems doubtful if the United flight was at the time they dragged Dr Doa off).
They must ask for volunteers and then, the sky is the limit- they can proffer any amounts.
If no one volunteers, they then must decide to deny boarding (which does not seem to be the same as deplaning). The legally compensation must be offered in cash, not vouchers. (In this case, United apparently never offered cash)
They must read the involuntarily denied boarding passengers their rights. (this does not seem to have happened)
All the time they are going thru these steps the plane is just sitting there.
The other issue is when the passenger can be bumped. To use the Uber analogy, you may be able to refuse to pick them up but I doubt you are allowed to drive them 5 miles THEN tell them to get out.
If they told him after they took off “We’re landing in Indianapolis and you’re getting off there and after that you’re on your own,” that’d be a valid comparison.
I think this could be a significant issue in the lawsuit and subsequent debates.
What, exactly, constitutes “boarding” in the legal sense? I’ve been reading this whole thread, but it’s been moving quickly, and i might have missed something. Has anyone found an explicit definition of boarding, and when the airline is, and is not, allowed to prevent a passenger from flying?
The CFR section on airline oversales does have a subsection of definitions, but it never defines exactly what boarding is, for the purposes of explaining what “denied boarding” might mean. And “denied boarding” is the only term they use to describe what’s going on here; they never talk about removing someone from a plane, and they never use the words “bumped” or “bumping.”
For me, the commonsense definition is that boarding involves getting on the plane and taking an assigned seat. Once you are on the plane and in possession of a boarding pass that indicates your seat number (or your boarding position, for Southwest), then you have actually boarded. From that point on, you can no longer be “denied boarding”; you can only be deboarded.
The question is whether this particular definition of boarding is the one that regulators and the legal system will agree with, or whether they will adopt a broader definition whereby boarding is only completed when the airline says it is.
I imagine the airline will say that you have not boarded until they shut the door. While they may be in boarding mode, and other may be boarding, I can’t imagine not thinking I have boarded if I’m sitting in my damn seat.
Because those steps cost money. And because “All the time they are going thru these steps the plane is just sitting there.” making it late, which cascades throughout the system.
And usually the airline does offer more. United chose not to do so.
Let me try again: I was saying that United’s various apologies and concessions don’t affect the validity of arguments over either right v. wrong, **or **legal v. illegal. I did not mean to imply I was unifying the two ‘versus’ pairs, because I agree rather strongly with what you said. I hope this clears things up.
In United’s CoC it never defines “boarding” in Section 2 (Definitions). Earlier in the thread I posted United’s website’s description of boarding and it would imply that once you take your seat you have completed boarding. I suspect something that will come out of all of this is an explicit definition from DOT as to what boarding is.
