United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight

[Sparky812]

I know someone at UA and they gave me a short breakdown, if I remember correctly.

1. The plane was fully booked, not overbooked.
2. The flight was being/had been boarded when 4 crew members appeared at the gate and demanded to be boarded because it was an “emergency” that they get to Louisville, KY to man another flight.
3. The gate agents solicited for volunteers but none came forward.
4. Incentives were offered, yet still no one volunteered their seats.
5. Apparently crew members are supposed to be considered as stand-by and therefore cannot bump a confirmed paid passenger on a fully booked flight.
6. Then the gate agents made the error in treating this situation as an overbooked flight.
7. 4 single ticket passengers were selected at random to be denied boarding possibly to be less conspicuous, to avoid breaking up a group, etc…
8. When passenger refused to leave seat willingly. Airport authorities are called to physically remove him.

While I agree that you MUST obey all instructions and cooperate with the crew and authorities, it should have never got to this point.

Secondly, the use of the police to resolve what is basically a consumer dispute is unconscionable.
In the most recent video, he does seem to be calm while refusing to leave and besides stating he needs to see patients the next morning at 8:00am, I believe he says something about flying in from LA and being in-transit for 24 hours.

[Quint]

@mhendo

LOL. I don’t know how you can type this with a straight face.

I have, in fact, been reading the thread, and the only evidence i’ve seen of a large payout is one single instance, on one single airline, with one particular family. You say that “Delta, etc.” offer “quite a bit more,” but there really is no “etc.” in your evidence, is there? We have one particular case, from Delta, where a family received compensation of $11,000. Not only that, but even your actual example is NOT a case of offering more than the federally-mandated maximum. Here’s the story again, in case, you want to actually read it.

This incident involved three passengers, and it involved being bumped on three separate occasions over a space of two days. That is nine total voluntary bumpings. And their total compensation for those nine bumpings (3 people x 3 flights) was $11,000, or about $1,220 per person, per flight. That is below the federal cap of $1,350 per person per flight for involuntary bumping.

So, to review, we have one single, incredibly unusual case. In that case, the total compensation was $11,000, but the compensation per person per flight was still under the federal cap. And, based on this, you have concluded that:OK, Mr. Evidence. Whatever you say.

Your claim is a bit like a student of political history looking at the election results for Minnesota and concluding that Walter Mondale won the 1984 election.

So are you saying here that $1220 is not “quite a bit more” than $800. Because I’d say it is.

[coremelt]

@Sparky812

5. Apparently crew members are supposed to be considered as stand-by and therefore cannot bump a confirmed paid passenger on a fully booked flight.

While I agree that you MUST obey all instructions and cooperate with the crew and authorities, it should have never got to this point.

If 5 is true then even though he didn’t obey the order of the crew I suspect he’ll get a multi million dollar settlement (with the amount not disclosed of course). He lost two front teeth and got a broken nose:

United Doctor Lost Two Front Teeth, Had Nose Broken, Concussion: Lawyer

Yes I agree United is pedantically in the right since he didn’t obey an order from the crew but United needs this to go away, and because he’s ethnically Chinese, it’s gone viral in China which is a huge market for United.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/united-airlines-could-pay-dearly-in-china-as-passenger-dragging-video-spreads-2017-04-11

[Dewey_Finn]

Here is a statement (PDF warning) from the United Airlines Master Executive Council (the pilots’ union). They point out that the flight was operated by Republic Airlines, that the crew on the flight was employed by Republic and the anger should be directed at the Chicago Department of Aviation.

[Dinsdale]

@Sparky812

1. The plane was fully booked, not overbooked.
2. The flight was being/had been boarded when 4 crew members appeared at the gate and demanded to be boarded because it was an “emergency” that they get to Louisville, KY to man another flight.

This is my understanding as well. Can anyone confirm/disprove this? Because even this a.m., the paper was referring this as an “overbooking” situation. If it was not overbooked, then all of the law about bumping and compensation seems irrelevant. Also makes it A LOT tougher for the airline to deflect blame towards the LEOs.

I find it hard to imagine that an airline would have a policy under which it involuntarily ousted a paying customer for an employee.

[jtur88]

I read this morning that Dr. Dao was traveling with his wife, but otherwise no mention of her throughout all this. If you are force-bumped, are your companions expected to just fly on, and check into a hotel to wait to see if you turn up later on? What about a bumped passenger who is flying with children?

What if it was his wife who was being dragged off the plane with a concussion?. Was Dr Dao expected to just sasy “See you later, Honey”?

[JRDelirious]

@Dewey_Finn

Here is a statement (PDF warning) from the United Airlines Master Executive Council (the pilots’ union). They point out that the flight was operated by Republic Airlines, that the crew on the flight was employed by Republic and the anger should be directed at the Chicago Department of Aviation.

Like I was sayin’… took them long enough. Although as the flight’s flagged as United Express they must have to follow a lot of UA-written service policies. But the union are pointing out it was not one of their crews that made the bad call.

And BTW may I say that’s one awesomely conspiralicious name for a labor union body. Evokes an underground lair and sharks with frickin’ “lasers” on their heads.

[Dewey_Finn]

I think it’s interesting that the United Airlines CEO never tried to shift the blame to Republic Airlines. In his first statement, he was tone-deaf enough to talk about the need to “re-accommodate” passengers, but was he consciously aware that denying that this wasn’t done by United Airlines personnel wouldn’t work?

[Acsenray]

Republic is acting on United’s behalf. All the branding is United’s. It would be silly and futile to say “that wasn’t us—ignore the fact that our trademarks are all over the plane.”

[Dewey_Finn]

Still, if I were him, I’d be thinking about ending that relationship.

[mhendo]

@Quint

So are you saying here that $1220 is not “quite a bit more” than $800. Because I’d say it is.

If you’d follow the conversation, you’d know that my original argument was that they did not offer more than the federally-mandated cap. The federally-mandated cap is $1350.

Is $1220 more than $1350?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@treis

They can do it even if it’s solely because they just feel like it.

It wouldn’t be too much to ask for a citation, would it?

@Dewey_Finn

I think it’s interesting that the United Airlines CEO never tried to shift the blame to Republic Airlines. In his first statement, he was tone-deaf enough to talk about the need to “re-accommodate” passengers, but was he consciously aware that denying that this wasn’t done by United Airlines personnel wouldn’t work?

I doubt United wants to publicize the fact that “United” flights are frequently actually “shady regional airline” flights using aircraft and staff wearing United costumes. Sophisticated travellers may know, but I doubt that rank-and-file passengers have any idea that United “subcontracts” the honor of flying them around.

[AlsoNamedBort]

Chicago Department of Aviation officer’s aren’t supposed to get involved in customer service issues:

Jeff Redding, deputy commissioner of safety and security for the city’s Department of Aviation, told aldermen that operating procedures bar aviation officers from boarding a plane “if it’s a customer service issue.”

“If it is a customer-service related incident, then you don’t need to board the plane at all,” Redding said. “If there’s no threat, there’s no imminent threat or no charges being drawn, then you don’t need to board the plane. There’s no purpose for it.”

[k9bfriender]

@AlsoNamedBort

Chicago Department of Aviation officer’s aren’t supposed to get involved in customer service issues:

It is starting to look more and more that there is plenty of blame to go around, with multiple parties and agencies violating their own policies as well as the law.

Pretty much the only person in the situation who actually did what he was supposed to got his teeth broken out of his mouth for his trouble.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I haven’t read this whole thread but based on what I have seen on other online forums, there are undoubtedly people who take the position that what United did (the removal of the customer) if not the way they did it was perfectly legal. Certainly the media narrative has been that the airline has great latitude for bumping passengers on overbooked flights.

Jens David Ohlin, theAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, makes a different case on the Dorf on Law Blog:

This overarching narrative—repeated in virtually every newspaper, with only a few exceptions—is incorrect at least as applied to this situation. Or, at the very least, it is far more complicated than the news reports suggest. In truth, airlines do indeed “bump” passengers from oversold flights, but the process by which they do so is to “deny boarding” to ticketed passengers who have otherwise complied with the boarding requirements. However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.

United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding.

[Dinsdale]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

… Certainly the media narrative has been that the airline has great latitude for bumping passengers on overbooked flights.

Yeah, but as I asked, WAS this flight “overbooked”?

Pretty much the only person in the situation who actually did what he was supposed to got his teeth broken out of his mouth for his trouble.

I doubt most folk would agree that Dr. Dao was “actually doing what he was supposed to.” I assume most people would agree that in certain situations individuals ought to comply with orders that they disagree with, which are not likely to cause them irreparable harm, and contest the orders afterwards.

Not saying he should have gotten what he got. But when an airline employee and then a LEO give you an order which is merely going to cause you inconvenience and some expense, I don’t agree that physically resisting is what one is supposed to do.

[Dewey_Finn]

Note that this was not an overbooked flight. There were enough seats for the paying passengers but the airline wanted to accommodate crew needed in Louisville. The rules are different in such cases.

[Broomstick]

@Dinsdale

Not saying he should have gotten what he got. But when an airline employee and then a LEO give you an order which is merely going to cause you inconvenience and some expense, I don’t agree that physically resisting is what one is supposed to do.

In what way did Dao “physically resist”? From the video we have it looks like he just said he wasn’t leaving and then they just grabbed him and dragged him, smashed his face into an armrest, and dragged him down the aisle. I recall seeing any indication he tried to fight back or offered any sort of violence even in his own defense. In fact, he looked pretty limp during most of it.

Do you have additional information the rest of us don’t?

[k9bfriender]

@Dinsdale

Yeah, but as I asked, WAS this flight “overbooked”?

No, in fact it wasn’t, which makes their actions even more in breach of their contract.

I doubt most folk would agree that Dr. Dao was “actually doing what he was supposed to.” I assume most people would agree that in certain situations individuals ought to comply with orders that they disagree with, which are not likely to cause them irreparable harm, and contest the orders afterwards.

He was supposed to be in the seat that he paid for. They were not supposed to order him out of it, breaking both their contract and the law.

Now, sure, you are correct that it would have been easier on the airline if he had meekly accepted the violation of his rights, but I disagree that rolling over is what you are supposed to do when your rights are violated.

Not saying he should have gotten what he got. But when an airline employee and then a LEO give you an order which is merely going to cause you inconvenience and some expense, I don’t agree that physically resisting is what one is supposed to do.

At this point we are getting into the is it legal or ethical to disobey an illegal order territory, which has been hashed out many times on this board. I agree that the law says that it is illegal to disobey an order given by the crew or leo, even if they are breaking the law themselves by giving the order, but I disagree that it is unethical to refuse an illegal order, even if it only costs you time and money.

[Quint]

@mhendo

If you’d follow the conversation, you’d know that my original argument was that they did not offer more than the federally-mandated cap. The federally-mandated cap is $1350.

Is $1220 more than $1350?

Well then, I’d just like to say “D’OH”!