Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal(resistancereport.com)
resistancereport.com
Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal
http://resistancereport.com/class-war/united-airlines-ceo-blames-passenger/
273 comments
> A person was legally required…
The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc.
A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?
The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc.
A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?
> Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room?
Yes.
Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement and exercised it to allow me to move back home when I really needed it.
It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is.... awkward.
People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.
Yes.
Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement and exercised it to allow me to move back home when I really needed it.
It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is.... awkward.
People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.
> A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do
That is your claim but it does not appear to be true.
Read this comment on reddit from a lawyer (unless someone shows that to be wrong I'll assume it to be true):
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_dou...
(EDIT: The comment is actually just a quote of another comment here: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-...)
According to that guy's reasoning they violated the law and that's all.
> and escalated the situation
I don't understand the mental gymnastics unfortunately performed numerously by people like you which can be found all over the comments to somehow let United be in the right here. Apparently in your eyes customers have no rights, and anything the corporation demands must be done, period. Especially when I look at how you phrase it: It seems more than obvious that if anyone escalated the situation is was United. The other people on board apparently saw it that way too! Nor did they do what they were required by law to do, to the end the compensation they offered was below what they were legally required to offer. Who escalated, tell me again?
That is your claim but it does not appear to be true.
Read this comment on reddit from a lawyer (unless someone shows that to be wrong I'll assume it to be true):
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_dou...
(EDIT: The comment is actually just a quote of another comment here: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-...)
According to that guy's reasoning they violated the law and that's all.
> and escalated the situation
I don't understand the mental gymnastics unfortunately performed numerously by people like you which can be found all over the comments to somehow let United be in the right here. Apparently in your eyes customers have no rights, and anything the corporation demands must be done, period. Especially when I look at how you phrase it: It seems more than obvious that if anyone escalated the situation is was United. The other people on board apparently saw it that way too! Nor did they do what they were required by law to do, to the end the compensation they offered was below what they were legally required to offer. Who escalated, tell me again?
Let's set aside the legality issue for the moment and assume that United was not legally allowed to have the man removed from the flight. What then is the appropriate response of the passenger? Is non-cooperation (i.e., require people to physically remove you from your seat) the right thing to do? Is physically resisting (hitting, pushing, grappling with, etc.) those sent to remove you permissible?
You reverse the questions. Why? The man didn't do anything, he just sat there. Those who did do something where those who injured him.
Who was bleeding, the police, a United airlines person - or the passenger?
But it is interesting that you still try to reframe the problem, anything to twist the issue. Do you work for United? I'm not accusing you, just asking, there certainly are more than enough people who are even more obedient to authority than at any time in the Kaiserreich (19th century Germany) whose only way to read any such story is "how can I possibly read this situation so that the big guys are right". Your idea of law and order seems to be top => down, and one-way only, the top guys command, the bottom guys obey - immediately, no questions (again: the passenger did not do anything, reacting to aggression is not aggression!).
Who was bleeding, the police, a United airlines person - or the passenger?
But it is interesting that you still try to reframe the problem, anything to twist the issue. Do you work for United? I'm not accusing you, just asking, there certainly are more than enough people who are even more obedient to authority than at any time in the Kaiserreich (19th century Germany) whose only way to read any such story is "how can I possibly read this situation so that the big guys are right". Your idea of law and order seems to be top => down, and one-way only, the top guys command, the bottom guys obey - immediately, no questions (again: the passenger did not do anything, reacting to aggression is not aggression!).
> You reverse the questions. Why?
I didn't intend on reversing a question. The only questions I see in this thread are ones I asked. I initially approached the situation from the perspective of the passenger, his decisions, and what would be right or wrong actions for him to take. Thinking about the same questions for the other actors in this situation — as you suggest — is also a good idea.
> Do you work for United?
Nope.
> Your idea of law and order is top down - and one-way.
If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
I didn't intend on reversing a question. The only questions I see in this thread are ones I asked. I initially approached the situation from the perspective of the passenger, his decisions, and what would be right or wrong actions for him to take. Thinking about the same questions for the other actors in this situation — as you suggest — is also a good idea.
> Do you work for United?
Nope.
> Your idea of law and order is top down - and one-way.
If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
> I didn't intend on reversing a question.
I didn't talk about "intent" but about what you did.
> Nope.
Ahh, somebody likes selective quoting. Care to read the entire section next time?
> If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
I know what you wrote and that's what I responded to. I don't care what you do with the rest of your life, I don't see it so there is nothing to comment. I commented on the visible part.
I didn't talk about "intent" but about what you did.
> Nope.
Ahh, somebody likes selective quoting. Care to read the entire section next time?
> If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
I know what you wrote and that's what I responded to. I don't care what you do with the rest of your life, I don't see it so there is nothing to comment. I commented on the visible part.
The legality of the request is in question. I assume you are referring to 49 U.S. Code § 46504 (link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504). There are many people who can argue both sides of that law.
I personally think he did not violate that law and thus was not legally required to disembark.
I personally think he did not violate that law and thus was not legally required to disembark.
People can be outraged by legal actions, especially since legal definitions leave a lot undefined in terms of how legal orders are actually carried out. The people who are outraged about this can apparently imagine other ways to alleviate the common situation of overbooking which don't require physically dragging a 69-year-old man unconscious and bleeding from a plane.
Anecdotal evidence, obviously, but I've been on many overbooked flights. Have never seen anything arise to this level of authorized violence. YMMV of course.
Anecdotal evidence, obviously, but I've been on many overbooked flights. Have never seen anything arise to this level of authorized violence. YMMV of course.
Airlines are the worst.
What most people (and the news) don't seem to realise is that airlines are the worst because of market forces. There is very little brand loyalty in general for airlines so small changes in prices have a large difference and they've found the there just isn't a large market for a better airline with significantly higher cost.
For recreational travelers I am inclined to agree with you. Yet for business travels, which are the backbone of most airlines, they are very brand loyal. They will contort their schedule and deaden their pain threshold to no ends to fly their preferred airline. Also price isn't a key driving decision for them, if one airline is $100 less on a given flight but the more expensive flight is still "in policy" they will go with the more expense flight on their preferred carrier.
I am a weekly business travel as are all my peers so this is purely my observations from 15+ years of frequent business travel.
I am a weekly business travel as are all my peers so this is purely my observations from 15+ years of frequent business travel.
That's true and it would be interesting to see an airline catering more to them but that's not the case for the majority of consumers and it would be unlikely that an airline could fill a plane if a seat cost much more. The trend in airlines currently is actually providing cheaper and less services
If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would take some of the savings made overbooking and spend it when it doesn't work out. At the end of the day I have a sneaking suspicion they'll still be ahead.
Apparently someone on the plane offered to give up their seat for $1600 and the manager laughed in their face.
Here's an account from someone who was actually on that plane: https://twitter.com/flsurfr/status/851556475013038080
Here's an account from someone who was actually on that plane: https://twitter.com/flsurfr/status/851556475013038080
Note that's $1,600 in United credits that expire.
That's how it always is right? It's always a voucher, not actual cash.
You are legally entitled to cash compensation but you specifically have to ask for it.
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...
Note: I believe this only applies to involuntary bumps, not voluntary ones(when you take the offer).
If it is voluntary, then don't take the offer.
I had no idea, thanks for the information!
When it happened to me in London a few years ago I was offered a choice between X in vouchers or 0.7X in cash.
I believe this is capped at a maximum of $1300. From [1]:
If it’s more than two hours (four hours for international
flights), or if the airline does not offer alternate
flights, the compensation is 400 percent of your one-way
fare, with a $1300 maximum.
It's 4x the price of the plane ticket, up to $1350 (the $1300 is indexed to inflation).[1]
Which explains why the crew offered $800 (it's a $200 ticket.)
BUT! Just because the the government caps the airline's liability does not mean the airline could not have offered more compensation to make it right. In fact given the unusual nature of the situation (flight was already fully boarded; the seats were needed for internal airline purposes, not other customers; the rule is for delays of 4 hours or more, while here the delay would have been close to 24 hours; the situation was escalating) they could have easily sweetened the deal further with an additional voucher or two, instead of calling the cops.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12...
Which explains why the crew offered $800 (it's a $200 ticket.)
BUT! Just because the the government caps the airline's liability does not mean the airline could not have offered more compensation to make it right. In fact given the unusual nature of the situation (flight was already fully boarded; the seats were needed for internal airline purposes, not other customers; the rule is for delays of 4 hours or more, while here the delay would have been close to 24 hours; the situation was escalating) they could have easily sweetened the deal further with an additional voucher or two, instead of calling the cops.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12...
That's a cap on what they're mandated by statute to give you as compensation. If for whatever reason your one way fare cost more than $325, then they don't have to pay you 4x that, just the cap.
It doesn't mean they can't offer you more.
It doesn't mean they can't offer you more.
That's the cap on what they're legally required to offer. There's no law that says they can't exceed that to avoid a PR disaster.
It’s not capped, as in the company is not allowed to offer more. The company is welcome to compensate more if they think this will help the situation. If the passengers who have been selected object, they can claim that much before boarding. Whether vouchers count is very much an open debate, as airlines tend to price useless vouchers at random prices. I’m not familiar with any rules allowing to disembark a passenger after the plane has been declared fully boarded other than security.
Isn't that their legal obligation though? Certainly they could have offered more considering everyone was seated already, they had the crew for a future flight to transport on time, and everyone was initially unwilling.
I think it's the timing that made things so difficult for them. If they asked me at the gate I'd be willing to take $400 plus flight comps. If it's when I'm already seated on the plane though (and reports said the man taken off was seated and buckled in already), my price goes way up.
One would think that since the crew dropped the ball by pulling people this late they would offer more money to make those guys volunteer happily.
I think it's the timing that made things so difficult for them. If they asked me at the gate I'd be willing to take $400 plus flight comps. If it's when I'm already seated on the plane though (and reports said the man taken off was seated and buckled in already), my price goes way up.
One would think that since the crew dropped the ball by pulling people this late they would offer more money to make those guys volunteer happily.
The video that was circulating online showed all the passengers seated and buckled up, and the one guy being forcibly ousted from his seat. So yeah...
That's the cap for compensation of involuntarily removed passengers. There's no cap on how much airlines can offer for a voluntary bump.
[deleted]
From what I have read, if you volunteer to leave they can pay you in flight vouchers. The worth of these is lessened by the fact they would give you $300 as 6x $50 vouchers which cannot be used at the same time.
If they elect you to leave the flight they have to pay you in cold hard cash - 4x the ticket value or $1350 max (assuming you are delayed by more than 2 hours).
Never volunteer to leave a flight until they state how you will be paid.
In Europe the airlines are not allowed to pay you in vouchers.
If they elect you to leave the flight they have to pay you in cold hard cash - 4x the ticket value or $1350 max (assuming you are delayed by more than 2 hours).
Never volunteer to leave a flight until they state how you will be paid.
In Europe the airlines are not allowed to pay you in vouchers.
Right. Airlines overbook because they make more money, and they are bound by laws like "If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum)."
Thus, if expected revenue from overbooking > expected payouts, overbooking is worth it.
HOWEVER, the legal compensation required scales really weirdly - $1350 maximum for anything over a two hour delay? Why would being delayed three hours be equivalent to being delayed something like 12-18 hours? I'm also not sure that maximum number has scaled with inflation.
Anyway, some airlines already do auction off this. All airlines ask for volunteers because the compensation they offer is always less than the legal requirement for involuntary bumping.
This is just a mess because United had already let the passengers on the plane, and weren't even offering that maximum, much less over it. If somebody here actually knows contract of carriage laws, does this sort of 'required compensation' thing hold after boarding happened?
Thus, if expected revenue from overbooking > expected payouts, overbooking is worth it.
HOWEVER, the legal compensation required scales really weirdly - $1350 maximum for anything over a two hour delay? Why would being delayed three hours be equivalent to being delayed something like 12-18 hours? I'm also not sure that maximum number has scaled with inflation.
Anyway, some airlines already do auction off this. All airlines ask for volunteers because the compensation they offer is always less than the legal requirement for involuntary bumping.
This is just a mess because United had already let the passengers on the plane, and weren't even offering that maximum, much less over it. If somebody here actually knows contract of carriage laws, does this sort of 'required compensation' thing hold after boarding happened?
One of the reports I heard from interviews of some other passengers on that flight was that the United issues voucher in $50 denominations, or 16 $50 vouchers expires in a year and have lots of restrictions and fine prints. In other words, the offer was NOT worthy the face value and hassle of "re-accommodation".
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights
The airline may offer some alternative compensation (and of course one can accept it) but you have a right to a check.
Of course the airline may try to hide this from you, or give you a hard time, but according to the Dept. of Transportation you're entitled to cash.
The airline may offer some alternative compensation (and of course one can accept it) but you have a right to a check.
Of course the airline may try to hide this from you, or give you a hard time, but according to the Dept. of Transportation you're entitled to cash.
I doubt many passengers who got bumped are aware of their legal rights - I didn't until you linked it out.
Edit: I read it again, it read like cash compensation is not guaranteed though.
> Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash.
In other words, if you have a frequent flyer number or enrolled in customer loyalty program, airlines can argue that you "do indeed" fly frequently, can't they?
Edit: I read it again, it read like cash compensation is not guaranteed though.
> Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash.
In other words, if you have a frequent flyer number or enrolled in customer loyalty program, airlines can argue that you "do indeed" fly frequently, can't they?
You're correct that many people are unaware of their rights. It's too bad; the airlines are obligated to inform bumped passengers of their rights but they don't always.
I'm not sure I follow your edit. How often you fly has no bearing on your rights. The DOT page says:
"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference."
If you were involuntarily bumped from a flight and certain other conditions are met, you are entitled to compensation (cash if you wish). It has nothing to do with frequent flier status.
I'm not sure I follow your edit. How often you fly has no bearing on your rights. The DOT page says:
"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference."
If you were involuntarily bumped from a flight and certain other conditions are met, you are entitled to compensation (cash if you wish). It has nothing to do with frequent flier status.
One issue is that the $800 that keeps getting quoted as the offered compensation was not cash. It was $800 in vouchers for more United flights that have redemption restrictions and a 1-year time limit. I guess it's worth something to some people, but it's really easy to see why no one chomped at the bit. United might have gotten someone to volunteer if it was just $500 of real cash.
They should do a live auction on the plane, "I need 4 people to get off for $100...$200..." The competitiveness to "win" would save airlines money, make the "winners" feel even better about getting booted, and the "losers" don't actually lose anything. Probably more efficient too.
They got up to $800 and had no takers. Not sure why they didn't go higher, wondering if United doesn't allow employees to offer more compensation than that. Which is a problem if so.
If there is a lawsuit, I bet the settlement will be several order of magnitudes that. Particularly given that the guy was a physician.
[deleted]
I doubt that United would be party to the lawsuit. It would be the airport cops who were called and roughed up the passenger.
They will be party to a lawsuit; and I'm guessing that they'll settle for some amount even if they would almost surely win. Their legal costs will be far more than $800 in any case.
I doubt i'll ever book with United again. I had a flight with United the exact same day as this incident for business but I assure you they've already lost at least $800 from me in future flights as a result of this... bullshit.
$800 in highly constrained flight vouchers. If it had been cash, it would have been a different story.
[deleted]
Exactly! United overbooked as an optimization for profits, fine. However, they should have to pay up when it backfires. They gave up at $800 and just started forcing people off. If it's free market when I'm buying my ticket, it should be free market for United buying it back.
It's even worse than that. They were disembarking passengers to make room for their own staff who were not even planned on this trip.
You understand their staff needed to be on this flight so that another plane full of passengers in Louisville wouldn't be delayed by not having a flight crew?
> He is allegedly a doctor, not a demigod. Someone else can cover his shift. - You, elsewhere in this thread
So you're saying, unlike doctors, flight staff are demigods and must be given priority because they are irreplaceable?
(The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure United will view their flight crew more as cogs than demigods.)
So you're saying, unlike doctors, flight staff are demigods and must be given priority because they are irreplaceable?
(The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure United will view their flight crew more as cogs than demigods.)
Everyone gets that. We're mad that United messed up the logistics of having staff in the right cities, and instead of treating their customers well they decided to use literal force to removed a customer with a confirmed seat who was already boarded.
They had better alternatives: other customers had offered to leave for higher voucher value, I'm sure they could have paid someone already in Louisville 4x overtime. Instead they chose force and intimidation.
They had better alternatives: other customers had offered to leave for higher voucher value, I'm sure they could have paid someone already in Louisville 4x overtime. Instead they chose force and intimidation.
At least they weren't on the fucking plane already. It was a next morning flight, plenty of time to wave off the customers affected by United's own fuckup. This is why we need to re-regulate the airlines.
[deleted]
Oh well! Then sure!! Its time to start knocking customers out with your hired goons then./s
It looks like it's not an overbooking at all, they just had employees showing up after the plane was full and united decided to kick some passenger out for them. But those employees were not paying nor were they planned to come on board before.
This e-mail illustrates the complete imbalance of the "contract" of carriage between passenger and airline, which is compounded by the Federal Aviation Regulations that give the crew ultimate power even when there's no safety risk[0].
The CEO states that the flight was 'fully boarded' and then later that it was decided to 'deny boarding' to four passengers.
So was it fully boarded or not? It doesn't really matter, the airline can change its language as it sees fit, to achieve its desired business objective and the customer has no recourse.
I'm an aviation enthusiast but I don't fly commercial airlines any more for this reason amongst others.
[0] Because when there's no safety risk they can just escalate until the customer becomes aggravated, and then there's a safety risk.
The CEO states that the flight was 'fully boarded' and then later that it was decided to 'deny boarding' to four passengers.
So was it fully boarded or not? It doesn't really matter, the airline can change its language as it sees fit, to achieve its desired business objective and the customer has no recourse.
I'm an aviation enthusiast but I don't fly commercial airlines any more for this reason amongst others.
[0] Because when there's no safety risk they can just escalate until the customer becomes aggravated, and then there's a safety risk.
I take issue with the idea it was over booked when it was the airline wanting to transport its own people in place of booked customers.
If anything we shall get to witness if the power of social media can overcome such abuse, It has helped turn the tables a bit with policing but usually only when it occurs in a public setting. People do need to take note that this actually is another case of police abuse just at the behest of a private company.
If anything we shall get to witness if the power of social media can overcome such abuse, It has helped turn the tables a bit with policing but usually only when it occurs in a public setting. People do need to take note that this actually is another case of police abuse just at the behest of a private company.
So United should not have tried to board their flight personnel so that another plane full of passengers could sit on the tarmac for hours in Louisville with no crew?
What? No, they should have kept upping the offer.
It wasn't worth a penny more than $800 + hotel and rebooking x 4 to United so they called the police to enforce their profit margin rather than pay the market cost of doing business.
It wasn't worth a penny more than $800 + hotel and rebooking x 4 to United so they called the police to enforce their profit margin rather than pay the market cost of doing business.
Couldn't agree more. A law requiring the airline to keep doubling the offer for volunteers every x minutes until y number take it will solve this problem 100% of the time.
They should make sure they have the seats for their personnel and not sell them to customers. In every other business if you sell the same thing to two people I would call it fraud.
It's really not that simple at all. A multitude of things could have happened in SDF (Louisville) causing the crew there to be unable to fly. Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements. In the interest of making sure that flight in SDF still went out the airline scrambled to get a reserve (flight crew members that are on-call) crew down to SDF. These things often happen at the last minute with no warning.
Not at all am I defending what happened on this flight. Just want to point out that last second adds of flight crew members is a VERY common occurrence and without it the number of cancels would skyrocket astronomically.
Not at all am I defending what happened on this flight. Just want to point out that last second adds of flight crew members is a VERY common occurrence and without it the number of cancels would skyrocket astronomically.
> Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements.
Gee, I wonder if they could, I don't know, hire more people so that these situations don't happen as often? Heaven forbid they lose a little bit of profit a year...
You simply delay the other flight. You don't force someone off of a flight they've already boarded.
Gee, I wonder if they could, I don't know, hire more people so that these situations don't happen as often? Heaven forbid they lose a little bit of profit a year...
You simply delay the other flight. You don't force someone off of a flight they've already boarded.
It's really hard to describe how all of this works without going into extremely detailed scenarios and edge cases. Simply put though hiring more people doesn't do anything.
Those extra people still would have to be sitting on call somewhere. Once they receive the call they're sent to where they're needed which still results in this situation. It's simply unreasonable to think they would have spare flight crews in every single possible destination. Unless you want about 1,000% increase in ticket prices of course.
I'm sure the other flight was delayed. Not getting a crew there on this last flight out for the night though would have likely meant cancelling the flight in Louisville or delaying it at least 24 hours. Stranding a plane in a city like Louisville would cause major ripple effects down the line resulting in probably another 10-15 flights being delayed. If they cancelled rather than delay now you have a plane full of passengers that need to be re-routed on multiple other planes that are likely already full.
Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
Those extra people still would have to be sitting on call somewhere. Once they receive the call they're sent to where they're needed which still results in this situation. It's simply unreasonable to think they would have spare flight crews in every single possible destination. Unless you want about 1,000% increase in ticket prices of course.
I'm sure the other flight was delayed. Not getting a crew there on this last flight out for the night though would have likely meant cancelling the flight in Louisville or delaying it at least 24 hours. Stranding a plane in a city like Louisville would cause major ripple effects down the line resulting in probably another 10-15 flights being delayed. If they cancelled rather than delay now you have a plane full of passengers that need to be re-routed on multiple other planes that are likely already full.
Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
See, for some reason people will go to lengths to somehow absolve corporations of their responsibility in this country. It's really sad.
Sure, there may be issues that can't be planned for, and you can't hire for every case and solve every issue. But that is still not this customer's fault, and he was punished for it, arbitrarily. Frankly I don't care how difficult it is for United to prevent this from happening again-it is their responsibility, it should not be the responsibility of their customers.
> Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
Then reserve 4 seats on every flight for possible situations that arise. It's not my problem that United loses money this way. It's theirs.
Sure, there may be issues that can't be planned for, and you can't hire for every case and solve every issue. But that is still not this customer's fault, and he was punished for it, arbitrarily. Frankly I don't care how difficult it is for United to prevent this from happening again-it is their responsibility, it should not be the responsibility of their customers.
> Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
Then reserve 4 seats on every flight for possible situations that arise. It's not my problem that United loses money this way. It's theirs.
I'm not absolving them of anything. What happened was wrong, no doubt about it. I'm making a best effort to explain why it's unreasonable to think that flights will never end up in this "oversold" situation.
By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.
By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.
> By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.
I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.
What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.
The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.
I guarantee you United wishes they did.
I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.
What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.
The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.
I guarantee you United wishes they did.
They have inter-airline relationships that they can put people on Southwest/Delta/American flights for a discounted rate. Easily avoiding this type of situation.
Or a Netjet. Plenty of options.
This is not the fault of any passenger.
The airline ceased to be civil when they shifted from an auction, to inviting police power on board. It was morally wrong for them to do this, and it was even worse for the police to agree to it.
There's no ethical, legal, or contractual argument for what the airline did; or the power they claim to have in this letter. They do not have the power to deplane people for the reason stated, their contract lists out numerous reasons for passenger removal but this is not one of them.
The airline ceased to be civil when they shifted from an auction, to inviting police power on board. It was morally wrong for them to do this, and it was even worse for the police to agree to it.
There's no ethical, legal, or contractual argument for what the airline did; or the power they claim to have in this letter. They do not have the power to deplane people for the reason stated, their contract lists out numerous reasons for passenger removal but this is not one of them.
They should've done a number of things before resorting to forcing people off. They should've increased the value far more before this occurred.
And on top of all that, there is no transparency at all on how they kick people off. And they have the audacity to talk nonchalantly about this man who had obligations refused to get off so he needed to be bloodied when they could've done so much more.
Sorry, it's not this man's fault someone got sick and a flight crew needs to be in Louisville. Hire more people or save 4 seats on every plane in the future. We shouldn't be responsible for a company's mistakes.
And on top of all that, there is no transparency at all on how they kick people off. And they have the audacity to talk nonchalantly about this man who had obligations refused to get off so he needed to be bloodied when they could've done so much more.
Sorry, it's not this man's fault someone got sick and a flight crew needs to be in Louisville. Hire more people or save 4 seats on every plane in the future. We shouldn't be responsible for a company's mistakes.
United should've planned ahead for their staff to get to where they need without forcing somebody off the plane. They already knew how many tickets were sold, how many checked in and how many boarded (they were already on the plane).
People get sick. Stuff happens. Every airline does this. It sucks, but if you think your distributed system in the cloud is complicated, running an airline every day would blow your mind.
Nope. They needed to have their house in order before boarding. They have the contractual right to deny boarding for overbooking, but this was not strictly an overbooking. They wanted to replace paying customers with non-paying non-customer crew, i.e. not overbooked. But even if you word smith this into overbooking, once the plane is boarded, the contract has a list of reasons for removing a passenger and not a single one of those reasons applies to this case.
The airline needed to raise the compensation price until someone volunteered, and if still no one volunteered, then tough noogies. They still do not get to shift from a civilized situation to a violent one by dragging state police power into what is strictly a monetary dispute.
The airline needed to raise the compensation price until someone volunteered, and if still no one volunteered, then tough noogies. They still do not get to shift from a civilized situation to a violent one by dragging state police power into what is strictly a monetary dispute.
United didn't drag anyone off the plane. ORD PD did.
Also, boarding is any time up until gate departure.
Also, boarding is any time up until gate departure.
Also their right to deny boarding ends once a passenger is boarded
Not true. Boarding basically means haven't left the gate. If you get to your seat, sit, then they realize that your seat belt is broken, they can deny you "boarding" instead of dispatching a tech to fix the belt. You were seated on the plane, now you're not. Boarding is an overly broad term, but that's how it is written.
This isn't convincing. The farthest I will stretch out boarding is, the moment your baggage is stowed and you are seated with a seat belt fastened (as required by FARs), then you are boarded.
In your example the basis for refusing transport is that due to an equipment problem it's not possible for that passenger to comply with FAR safety regulations and therefore is in breach of the contract of carriage for the airline. The terminology of the word boarding isn't even relevant in your example.
In your example the basis for refusing transport is that due to an equipment problem it's not possible for that passenger to comply with FAR safety regulations and therefore is in breach of the contract of carriage for the airline. The terminology of the word boarding isn't even relevant in your example.
United should have kept raising the offered compensation.
The crew members needed to be in the destination the next day, surely there was other flights or connecting flights the crew could have taken? Maybe setup some seats in the baggage storage area in the belly for crew if it is such an emergency?
Some larger aircraft actually have that for routes that require crew changes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-airplane-bedrooms-2015...
http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-airplane-bedrooms-2015...
is your logic that a plane full of passengers sitting on the tarmac is worse than a man being assaulted and dragged off a plane? Because if not, the answer to your question is a very obvious yes - they should be made to wait. I would happily wait on a plane if i knew it was to prevent someone being assaulted....
(though if the crew wasnt there, they wouldnt board the plane anyways, the other flight would've been cancelled or delayed, which happens all the time)
(though if the crew wasnt there, they wouldnt board the plane anyways, the other flight would've been cancelled or delayed, which happens all the time)
So by your logic if I don't want to upend my side of the deal I can just call muscle and smash a man face?
One has to be very careful challenging the final authority of the crew. In the times where this was not the case, you could just tell your pilots to be on time no matter what and end up with crashes due to flying into weather, running out of fuel, etc. At the end of the day, the PIC needs final authority since it's their ass on the line as well.
As an aside, the flight deck crew don't really pay much attention to whats happening in the back and have to rely on the FAs to manage the passengers. If the FA complains about someone to the flight deck, the PIC will generally follow their recommendation without pause.
What is the alternative to commercial airlines for someone who isn't crazy rich?
High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason.
When I was in the UK, I took the Virgin Rail from London to Manchester. The additional room and ability to walk around made it so much better than a flight. I would have paid more. The time difference was negligible once you count all the extra screening time for airports.
When I was in the UK, I took the Virgin Rail from London to Manchester. The additional room and ability to walk around made it so much better than a flight. I would have paid more. The time difference was negligible once you count all the extra screening time for airports.
It doesn't work because it's crazy expensive to build tracks, and not cost effective unless you have massive density.
Airlines are better, not just because planes are faster, but because of flexibility. You can find a space somewhere and build a new airport, or add a new runway to an existing airport and use less than one thousandth the land the rail line will require. The planes you fly to one destination can suddenly be switched to fly to almost any another destination, in a day.
Yea, the comfort of trains is better, but thats about it.
Airlines are better, not just because planes are faster, but because of flexibility. You can find a space somewhere and build a new airport, or add a new runway to an existing airport and use less than one thousandth the land the rail line will require. The planes you fly to one destination can suddenly be switched to fly to almost any another destination, in a day.
Yea, the comfort of trains is better, but thats about it.
It's not just about the comfort of seating in a train. It's about not having to queue for 1h at security, being abused by TLA officers, queue again, getting checked, queue again, getting checked, etc. Flying today feels like going to jail.
If you have as much commercial pressure in trains as you do in flights, then I'm sure you will be asked to do the same sort of checks, and standing in queues. This happens because flights are an easy target (due to high costs, visibility and more favored view in the public eye). If we had someone attacking train lines because they carried a lot of people, you would have correspondingly sever safety regulations too.
I feel like a lot of the security for flights is basically theater now. 9/11 worked because the passengers believed they were being hijacked, and had a reasonable chance of surviving. Most of the procedure is chasing terrorist strategy that isn't going to be used. They've already switched tactics (laptop bombs, for example), and our current approach isn't helping much.
I think you already forgot one of the most deadly terrorist attack on the European continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
Nevertheless, we don't have the same security circus when boarding train.
Nevertheless, we don't have the same security circus when boarding train.
[deleted]
High speed passenger rail doesn't work in the US because freight is prioritized over moving people. That's the short version at least. I found this video to be a pretty good walkthrough - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ
> High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't work in the US for some reason.
Looking at what is happening in California, cost is the largest issue[1]. The other reason is the US optimized its rail for cargo which it does well.
Frankly, I do believe that automated cars with solve the less than 50 mile commute problems better than light rail. I actually am a little optimistic that one of the hyperloop companies will get it together to create a short elevated line that can actually start a new building phase for rail (well, tube) transport. The danger is that they realize they will probably make more money on cargo and go that way.
1) the compromises on speed are going to make for a lot of controversy if it ever does get done
Looking at what is happening in California, cost is the largest issue[1]. The other reason is the US optimized its rail for cargo which it does well.
Frankly, I do believe that automated cars with solve the less than 50 mile commute problems better than light rail. I actually am a little optimistic that one of the hyperloop companies will get it together to create a short elevated line that can actually start a new building phase for rail (well, tube) transport. The danger is that they realize they will probably make more money on cargo and go that way.
1) the compromises on speed are going to make for a lot of controversy if it ever does get done
UK rail isn't high speed and probably the worse in Europe outside of the old com block countries.
London to Manchester is somewhat still OK but London to Newcastle takes longer and costs more than London to Brussels via the Eurostar.
London to Manchester is somewhat still OK but London to Newcastle takes longer and costs more than London to Brussels via the Eurostar.
The Virgin train was definitely faster than a normal train . I'm not 100% clear on the semantics of what counts as high speed rail. I believe they are 100-120mph or so.
The thing that mattered to me is that it was 2 hours, because a 1 hour flight isn't really a 1 hour flight after you deal with the airport.
The thing that mattered to me is that it was 2 hours, because a 1 hour flight isn't really a 1 hour flight after you deal with the airport.
Virgin is doing 125mph, Eurostar is doing 186mph :)
IIRC the barrier of entry for "High-Speed Rail" in Europe (or in general) is 150-155mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
The UK has only 1 line with a speed permit of upto 300km/h (186mph) which is used for the Eurostar.
It has 4-5 other "fast" lines with a speed limit of 200 km/h (125mph) which doesn't technically count as highspeed.
IIRC the barrier of entry for "High-Speed Rail" in Europe (or in general) is 150-155mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
The UK has only 1 line with a speed permit of upto 300km/h (186mph) which is used for the Eurostar.
It has 4-5 other "fast" lines with a speed limit of 200 km/h (125mph) which doesn't technically count as highspeed.
Good to know! I just booked round trip Manchester <-> London on that rail in June.
It was great. Not posh or anything, but better all around. You can use a laptop, eat actual food at an actual bar/table, see some pretty countryside views. And even if the train is packed, you aren't crammed into the passenger next to you. Not to mention the relaxed boarding experience.
PPL ASEL will cost you about $8k (doable if you really want it) and a 172@$105/hr wet to travel around in at 110kts. Take two fearless friends and you have yourself a private airline.
Whats the time commitment like? is it full time for 3 months or a couple hours every weekend for 6 months ?
It took me 13 months all told but I had a lot going on at the time. If your expenses are low you can do it in 8 months or so but that's unusual. Note that I say expenses and not income, it's usually best to pay as you go and not go into the red month to month.
That said, if you live somewhere with a convenient airport and a decent rental fleet (more places than you'd expect) it's highly liberating. I live near Denver and have gotten bored and flown to Canon city and surrounding areas for the day. Also, Pilots n Paws is awesome
That said, if you live somewhere with a convenient airport and a decent rental fleet (more places than you'd expect) it's highly liberating. I live near Denver and have gotten bored and flown to Canon city and surrounding areas for the day. Also, Pilots n Paws is awesome
Yeah, that isn't going to work very well for getting me from California to my family in New York.
Assuming you have no fear of death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Long-EZ
Surprisingly economical too, 2000mi on ~$200 in fuel. Probably around $60k to build right now (depending on avionics)
Edit: 100LL (aviation gasoline) is around $4/gal right now, hence the $200 for 52gal
Surprisingly economical too, 2000mi on ~$200 in fuel. Probably around $60k to build right now (depending on avionics)
Edit: 100LL (aviation gasoline) is around $4/gal right now, hence the $200 for 52gal
The best advice I've received while earning my PPL is: "fly for fun, not for transportation". When you add the stress of "I/we need to get to our destination on time", mistakes get made.
Yes and no. You can definitely travel with it, just make sure you continue your training (IR), plan carefully, and don't put yourself in a position where anything worse than some PTO usage will occur if you don't make it back on time. Also, start small and get used to FBO operations. Nothing like being stuck somewhere after hours
What do these acronyms mean? Google is not helping me.
Airplane, single-engine land. It's a rating added on to a pilot certificate, and says what kind af aircraft you may fly. The "land" part means an airplane that lands on the ground, which is different from "sea", for airplanes that can land on water.
Also, note that minimally you would need a commercial certificate to fly for hire. Even then, there are some restrictions on how you can do that. A private allows you to fly with friends, but you may not charge them. You can share expenses for the flight with friends, but need to be careful that it's legitimate sharing.
Also, note that minimally you would need a commercial certificate to fly for hire. Even then, there are some restrictions on how you can do that. A private allows you to fly with friends, but you may not charge them. You can share expenses for the flight with friends, but need to be careful that it's legitimate sharing.
My comment was tongue in cheek but you can share expenses if you are traveling for a "common purpose" and not "holding out". In other words, fly with friends to somewhere you all want to go together. You basically just can't create an airplane Uber (naturally, people have tried).
Private Pilot's License? ASEL is a commercial pilot's license, apparently.
Nope: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/priva...
taloft explains it well. You can have a PPL or CPL (or ATP) in the ASEL, AMEL, ASES, AMES, etc.
Unfortunately, it seems to be bus or car, and I don't think that Greyhound is what it was 40 years ago.
Greyhound is super sketchy. Service is terrible. About 10 yrs ago, I made the near-mistake of taking a Greyhound to a different city to catch a cheap international flight. I was going from a remote city to a big one. Luckily I had given myself a buffer of 8-12 hours. The bus was initially a couple of hours late for a 5 hour trip. Then, at a transit point we had to change buses and we were told that ticket doesn't guarantee seat and it's first come first serve! And there's only one bus per day from the less remote connecting city! I was lucky to get into the bus that day and not missing what turned out to be a memorable vacation.
I only rode Greyhound one other time. Other observations: Greyhound stations are super sketchy in many cities. Buses are sometimes poorly maintained. Tickets are pricey. Etc.
Bus and car are not suitable replacements. I can't add 6 days of driving to my work trips to the East coast, or to my family visits to New York.
The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.
Some people appear to think that what they did wasn't legal. See:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forci...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forci...
That is a fantastic link. Summary of the points:
CFR 250.2a covers overbooking but only applies before boarding. Since the United employees had no confirmed reserved seats on the aircraft, they cannot be given priority over a customer with a confirmed reserved seat.
The passenger was already boarded, so they cannot rely on oversales rules to refuse service. Instead they need to rely on their Contract of Carriage which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark. They publicly stated that their reason for asking him to leave was because he was selected by a computer, but this is not allowed by their rule 21.
They had no legal right to refuse him service at that point.
CFR 250.2a covers overbooking but only applies before boarding. Since the United employees had no confirmed reserved seats on the aircraft, they cannot be given priority over a customer with a confirmed reserved seat.
The passenger was already boarded, so they cannot rely on oversales rules to refuse service. Instead they need to rely on their Contract of Carriage which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark. They publicly stated that their reason for asking him to leave was because he was selected by a computer, but this is not allowed by their rule 21.
They had no legal right to refuse him service at that point.
"which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark"
You should go back to law school. They can eject anyone at any time for any reason.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoic...
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
You should go back to law school. They can eject anyone at any time for any reason.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoic...
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
You're wrong.
Both of your examples would violate Rule 21, H, 1, and therefore removal is allowed.
In the case under discussion, the passenger was not in breach of rule 21 for any of the listed reasons.
Both of your examples would violate Rule 21, H, 1, and therefore removal is allowed.
In the case under discussion, the passenger was not in breach of rule 21 for any of the listed reasons.
Yep, and in order to exercise his legal rights in this entirely civil case, he ought to have left the plane called his lawyer then gone before a judge.
This whole act of struggling with the police is never going to get a good outcome. It will only escalate things from a civil matter to a criminal one.
This whole act of struggling with the police is never going to get a good outcome. It will only escalate things from a civil matter to a criminal one.
Given that either the police were acting illegally or United must have falsely asserted facts that made the removal legal, it seems to me that it must have become criminal, either on the part of the police or, more likely, United's false police report, before any struggle.
I think it's still up in the air as to if he had any kind of right to his seat.
United asserts, they prioritise their employees gaining seats on the flight because their employees are actually necessary to the operation of this flight and others.
It makes business sense, and its logical.
There's no law on any book that will force someone to serve you, whether it be transportation wise or by letting you have use of their mobile property (land/residences are a special case). United can pick random people at any time to get off the flight, for any reason, and at worst it will be a contractural breach or a violation of a civil statue (like the overbooking clause).
Once he was told to get off, he should have gotten off.
United asserts, they prioritise their employees gaining seats on the flight because their employees are actually necessary to the operation of this flight and others.
It makes business sense, and its logical.
There's no law on any book that will force someone to serve you, whether it be transportation wise or by letting you have use of their mobile property (land/residences are a special case). United can pick random people at any time to get off the flight, for any reason, and at worst it will be a contractural breach or a violation of a civil statue (like the overbooking clause).
Once he was told to get off, he should have gotten off.
Absolutely not. In order for United to exercise THEIR civil rights in this entirely civil case and sue for lost revenue related to not being able to get their crew to Louisville, they should have let him fly after confirming his refusal to leave and then later pleaded their case before a judge. If United indeed had the right to reject him, they would have been compensated by the doctor.
It was United, not the passenger, who escalated to violence in a purely civil matter. He did not force himself onto the plane, he simply declined to give up the seat he had already been given.
It was United, not the passenger, who escalated to violence in a purely civil matter. He did not force himself onto the plane, he simply declined to give up the seat he had already been given.
This legal argument would explain both the CEO's twitter statements and the leaked letter.
If airline employees cannot legally contribute to "overbooking" and if a passenger has different rights once seated, then there will be a legal settlement. In that scenario, every communication by United would need to serve dual PR and legal objectives.
If airline employees cannot legally contribute to "overbooking" and if a passenger has different rights once seated, then there will be a legal settlement. In that scenario, every communication by United would need to serve dual PR and legal objectives.
So it was stupid business not to offer more money for other people to leave the plane (or to find some other way to move the crew), there's nothing to argue about there.
What did they do that should be illegal?
Overselling each flight makes the tickets cheaper. People want cheaper tickets. So it isn't obvious to me that over selling is wrong. Is the problem that they failed to stop the people boarding before deciding they didn't want to carry them on that flight?
What did they do that should be illegal?
Overselling each flight makes the tickets cheaper. People want cheaper tickets. So it isn't obvious to me that over selling is wrong. Is the problem that they failed to stop the people boarding before deciding they didn't want to carry them on that flight?
Everyone should note that they called law enforcement and law enforcement used physical force on the passenger.
Should the airlines be prevented from ever contacting law enforcement? Is law enforcement not responsible for their own actions after the airline asks them to do something?
Should the airlines be prevented from ever contacting law enforcement? Is law enforcement not responsible for their own actions after the airline asks them to do something?
The should not contact law enforcement when someone refuses to leave the plane because it's overbooked.
If someone is actually causing a problem or is somehow dangerous, then yes, by all means, call the police.
If someone is actually causing a problem or is somehow dangerous, then yes, by all means, call the police.
An honest way to overbook would be to sell seats beyond capacity as standby.
Selling "over-capacity" as stand-by is potentially problematic, as it's not at all clear when you're overcapacity. It's always a probability game. Classifying tickets as "stand-by" as soon as probability > 0 would likely reduce their desirability, resulting in less full planes and higher overall prices.
The opposite setup would not, though. i.e., like refundable tickets, offer non-refundable guaranteed tickets that are locked out of the ticket system. This maintains the current pricing characteristics while offering travellers the option of paying more when it matters to them.
Or a sliding scale of probability of being seated. If your typical ticket has a 99% chance of being seated, most people won't care to pay extra but they know they have the possibility of being booted and cannot possibly complain.
The problem with all of these approaches is they add to the complexity of purchasing a ticket, which consumers generally don't like.
The opposite setup would not, though. i.e., like refundable tickets, offer non-refundable guaranteed tickets that are locked out of the ticket system. This maintains the current pricing characteristics while offering travellers the option of paying more when it matters to them.
Or a sliding scale of probability of being seated. If your typical ticket has a 99% chance of being seated, most people won't care to pay extra but they know they have the possibility of being booted and cannot possibly complain.
The problem with all of these approaches is they add to the complexity of purchasing a ticket, which consumers generally don't like.
They are just selling all/most seats as standby.
Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights.
Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets.
Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).
It's a system that works well. It keeps planes as full as possible. It keeps fares as low as possible.
I'm not sure it should change based on one guy who decided he was too important to accept being bumped.
Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets.
Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to).
It's a system that works well. It keeps planes as full as possible. It keeps fares as low as possible.
I'm not sure it should change based on one guy who decided he was too important to accept being bumped.
One person who "decided he was too important to accept being bumped"? How about one person who expected the contract that he paid for in good faith to being fulfilled? Someone who made commitments to others based on that contract.
Why is it now that the consumer always has no rights? Don't want your private information sold when using the internet? Don't use the internet.
Don't want to be forcibly removed from a plane in which you followed all the rules for purchasing a ticket that was most likely non-refundable if you didn't show up, lost your rights for privacy by being searched to board the plane, stood in line to board the plane, was on time, boarded the plane to sit in an uncomfortable seat, maybe had to pay extra to store your luggage, then get beat up when you were told they weren't going to honor the contract?
What is this country becoming?
Why is it now that the consumer always has no rights? Don't want your private information sold when using the internet? Don't use the internet.
Don't want to be forcibly removed from a plane in which you followed all the rules for purchasing a ticket that was most likely non-refundable if you didn't show up, lost your rights for privacy by being searched to board the plane, stood in line to board the plane, was on time, boarded the plane to sit in an uncomfortable seat, maybe had to pay extra to store your luggage, then get beat up when you were told they weren't going to honor the contract?
What is this country becoming?
The whole point is that the ticket doesn't actually guarantee a seat on a given flight. Bumping is in the contract.
Bumping happens before boarding.The contract doesn't allow for bumping after being seated. They're also required to offer up to $1300 cash if you refuse the $800 voucher.
The whole point is that the contract is shit.
The post I replied to is written as if it is something different than it is (they write as if the contract guarantees a seat on a flight at a particular time; of course it doesn't).
I think it's a bad situation, but I also think people giving very high priority to price is a big part of the reason that the contract is shit.
I think it's a bad situation, but I also think people giving very high priority to price is a big part of the reason that the contract is shit.
Let me correct that for you: 200+ people who decided that United hadn't offered enough incentives/financial compensation to be bumped.
If United ran an escalating auction system - like Delta does on overbooked flights - they would eventually have found someone to volunteer to take the incentive and that person would have voluntarily disembarked. Because they were apparently too cheap to do this, their share price is getting pounded into the ground today.
Whether that gets United's sociopathic CEO to change policy or not remains to be seen. If it doesn't, I'm inclined to agree with the OP: the consumer protection laws, at least for commercial flights, need to be updated so this doesn't happen again.
If United ran an escalating auction system - like Delta does on overbooked flights - they would eventually have found someone to volunteer to take the incentive and that person would have voluntarily disembarked. Because they were apparently too cheap to do this, their share price is getting pounded into the ground today.
Whether that gets United's sociopathic CEO to change policy or not remains to be seen. If it doesn't, I'm inclined to agree with the OP: the consumer protection laws, at least for commercial flights, need to be updated so this doesn't happen again.
>Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights.
That's false. They overbook because it makes them more money and for some reason people just accept it. Pretty much no other industry could get away with doing that to its customers.
Imagine the shit storm that would have unveiled if some random movie theatre sold 110% of its seats for the midnight premier of Star Wars VII and subsequently physically removed people from their seats because their employees also wanted to see the movie and they sold too many tickets.
That's false. They overbook because it makes them more money and for some reason people just accept it. Pretty much no other industry could get away with doing that to its customers.
Imagine the shit storm that would have unveiled if some random movie theatre sold 110% of its seats for the midnight premier of Star Wars VII and subsequently physically removed people from their seats because their employees also wanted to see the movie and they sold too many tickets.
Hotels do this all the time. They book over 100% occupancy and usually someone cancels at the last minute and there's no problem. If everyone shows up they bump one of the people on the lowest rate. They give them a room at a comparable hotel nearby and some sort of other compensation. Most price-sensitive guests are okay with this trade because they're getting something for free.
They don't have fiascos like this because they aren't foolish enough to let them into the room before removing them. Unsurprisingly, kicking a guest out of a room/plane has a much higher risk of escalation than not letting them in.
They don't have fiascos like this because they aren't foolish enough to let them into the room before removing them. Unsurprisingly, kicking a guest out of a room/plane has a much higher risk of escalation than not letting them in.
That's false. A ton of airline business is refundable business travelers. Your meeting goes late? Take the next flight.
Airlines are catering to their customers, if one didn't offer refundable their competitors would.
If one offered refundable but didn't overbook, 10% of their passengers wouldn't show up for every flight. They'd get killed by competitors who did overbook and could offer cheaper fares because that 10% is nearly pure profit.
And though they've actually made big profits the last couple years, historically airlines are one of the least profitable businesses, possibly even posting net negative profits over the entire industry lifetime. They require massive capital costs to buy expensive airplanes, and alternate profitable and unprofitable years. Warren Buffett said if he had been at Kittyhawk he would have done capitalism a favor and shot the Wright Brothers down.
Airlines are catering to their customers, if one didn't offer refundable their competitors would.
If one offered refundable but didn't overbook, 10% of their passengers wouldn't show up for every flight. They'd get killed by competitors who did overbook and could offer cheaper fares because that 10% is nearly pure profit.
And though they've actually made big profits the last couple years, historically airlines are one of the least profitable businesses, possibly even posting net negative profits over the entire industry lifetime. They require massive capital costs to buy expensive airplanes, and alternate profitable and unprofitable years. Warren Buffett said if he had been at Kittyhawk he would have done capitalism a favor and shot the Wright Brothers down.
He was a doctor trying to get to the hospital he works at. In this case he actually is "too important to accept being bumped".
Not that that would justify doing this to anyone else but he had a very good reason to not want to get off the plane.
This is why offering more and more money is a good strategy. There almost certainly were people on the flight willing to get bumped for $1500. But the doctor likely would have turned down nearly any sum of money if it meant putting his patients in danger.
Not that that would justify doing this to anyone else but he had a very good reason to not want to get off the plane.
This is why offering more and more money is a good strategy. There almost certainly were people on the flight willing to get bumped for $1500. But the doctor likely would have turned down nearly any sum of money if it meant putting his patients in danger.
They should have offered more.
But he's a doctor, not royalty. Hospitals have more than one doctor in case someone can't make their shifts. He was no more important than any other passenger.
But he's a doctor, not royalty. Hospitals have more than one doctor in case someone can't make their shifts. He was no more important than any other passenger.
Perhaps he or his employer valued his timely flight at $5,000 or more while some other passenger would have gladly taken $501 in cash. Now it looks like United will end paying millions directly in court or settlement costs, plus many more millions in lost revenue due to negative publicity. Hopefully United, by paying his laywers will have bought themselves a clue and start offering real values to Volunteers. And other airlines will learn by proxy if they know what's good for them.
Ask 10 people on the street how the compensation works today, maybe 2-3 will know. If you asked them 2 days ago, maybe 1.
Point is the compensation is obfuscated. If people demanded their $1350 or whatever when this happened, things may be better.
Point is the compensation is obfuscated. If people demanded their $1350 or whatever when this happened, things may be better.
Another way of looking at this would be to point out that internet service and air travel are the only two industries where it is legally allowed to sell people something you know in advance you can't provide.
In a sane world, overbooking would be at best illegal, the airline would realize the savings from the flight they were paid for but didn't actually have to carry the 200 pounds of passenger + luggage.
(That's about $90 worth of fuel on top of the average $350 price for a plane ticket)
At worst, overbooked tickets would be required to be disclosed as such at the time of purchase.
In a sane world, overbooking would be at best illegal, the airline would realize the savings from the flight they were paid for but didn't actually have to carry the 200 pounds of passenger + luggage.
(That's about $90 worth of fuel on top of the average $350 price for a plane ticket)
At worst, overbooked tickets would be required to be disclosed as such at the time of purchase.
Another way of looking at this would be to point out that internet service and air travel are the only two industries where it is legally allowed to sell people something you know in advance you can't provide.
There's also fractional-reserve banking, hotels, old-style phones, online / mail-order shopping ("sorry, your stuff is in back order"), etc.
Statistical arbitrage is a thing.
There's also fractional-reserve banking, hotels, old-style phones, online / mail-order shopping ("sorry, your stuff is in back order"), etc.
Statistical arbitrage is a thing.
Hotels tell you when they're full and stop accepting bookings, nobody is selling anything at FR banking, everywhere I shop online tells me when their stuff is known out of stock, and so on.
Air travel does none of these things. They know they've sold more than they can provide, and do nothing to tell people until the last possible minute just to make a buck.
Air travel does none of these things. They know they've sold more than they can provide, and do nothing to tell people until the last possible minute just to make a buck.
This is silly. If every plane had every ticket sold and no one showed up, the airlines would make out even better. Less cost of food and drinks, fuel, labor costs in moving baggage. Airlines should HOPE people don't show up and take seats on the plane. This idea that they overbook because people don't show up is a money-grab and when it bites them in the ass I, for one, am glad.
To be honest in that situation overselling would net airlines even more money. That's why airlines oversell.
IMO a better system would be a more market-based solution.
Disallow involuntary bumping except under exceptional circumstances, and require airlines to up theirs compensation until enough people voluntarily bump themselves. Airlines would still oversell but at lower % because the cost is now higher. And people who get bumped are at least given satisfactory compensations.
IMO a better system would be a more market-based solution.
Disallow involuntary bumping except under exceptional circumstances, and require airlines to up theirs compensation until enough people voluntarily bump themselves. Airlines would still oversell but at lower % because the cost is now higher. And people who get bumped are at least given satisfactory compensations.
The rules regarding overbooking are irrelevant as they can only be used to deny boarding. He was already boarded.
Doesn't anyone with an ounce of PR sense work at this company? No one is impressed by the legal technicalities. No one cares that the internal policies were followed.
If they want to get out ahead of this they need to understand and come to grips with the fact that they are well nigh universally perceived to have been in the wrong.
If they want to get out ahead of this they need to understand and come to grips with the fact that they are well nigh universally perceived to have been in the wrong.
United is somewhat famous, even in the generally unfriendly airline industry, for being ham-handed around PR and customer relations.
See http://untied.com, a parody/complaint site.
See http://untied.com, a parody/complaint site.
Oddly enough, the actual United website still praises their CEO for winning a PR award.
I seriously can't understand what kind of mental gymnastics this airline management is doing in order to justify in their heads that this is just fine.
Even if the law is on their side, they still overbooked the plane by themselves, they still let everyone check in, they still let everyone in onboard and they still forcibly removed some random paying passenger just because someone on their staff wanted/needed (anyone can clarify this part?) to board.
Here is an idea for United (your HR department can contact me, I'm available to hire for 50% of your CEO and I easily come up with much better ideas):
1 - you just have to simply get the attention of the passengers on the plane (if you can be a bit smart and do it OUTSIDE the plane it's even better).
2- keep increasing the compensation you give one (or the needed) of them in order for them to catch a later flight.
Sooner or later someone would just accept the compensation. Also, that compensation wouldn't be anything special anyway since you have a plane full of people competing for it. The passenger would be happy, United would get what it wanted and you wouldn't have this media shitstorm in your hands.
Yes... it's really that simple United (again, tell your HR department I'm available for hire).
Even if the law is on their side, they still overbooked the plane by themselves, they still let everyone check in, they still let everyone in onboard and they still forcibly removed some random paying passenger just because someone on their staff wanted/needed (anyone can clarify this part?) to board.
Here is an idea for United (your HR department can contact me, I'm available to hire for 50% of your CEO and I easily come up with much better ideas):
1 - you just have to simply get the attention of the passengers on the plane (if you can be a bit smart and do it OUTSIDE the plane it's even better).
2- keep increasing the compensation you give one (or the needed) of them in order for them to catch a later flight.
Sooner or later someone would just accept the compensation. Also, that compensation wouldn't be anything special anyway since you have a plane full of people competing for it. The passenger would be happy, United would get what it wanted and you wouldn't have this media shitstorm in your hands.
Yes... it's really that simple United (again, tell your HR department I'm available for hire).
They should have increased compensation. I'm wondering if they have a company limit of $800.
The reason this happened is they had another crew that missed their flight and needed to get to Lousville in time or another plane load of passengers would be stuck on the tarmac.
The reason this happened is they had another crew that missed their flight and needed to get to Lousville in time or another plane load of passengers would be stuck on the tarmac.
I've read somewhere (can't find the link now) that the subject aircrew was from an associate airline (United Express--different operator than United who also operates regional jets for American and others, so not even technically their own employee. Other plane would not have been stuck on the tarmac. The crew had to get to Louisville that night to meet crew rest requirements. So that flight could have been cancelled/delayed hours in advance if no crew was available to fly it. The owners of that crew had other methods available to get that crew to Louisville, UA did not have to accommodate them on a fully booked flight, and in fact could not legally do so. I personally think there must have been some hanky-panky going on between members of the two flight crews. I can't think of any other reason UA would bend over backwards to fuck this up so badly.
Rough. I can see where he's coming from though. This was a private email to employees, and in that context he definitely needs to be a cheerleader for them.
Overbookings are industry standard, and they called security for someone who wouldn't leave. "Correct" protocol.
I think what most likely happened is the security guard that has been placed on leave did his job very poorly. As soon as he hit the passenger his coworkers probably thought "Uh oh. We need to just get him out of here before this gets worse. Because this is not what's supposed to happen."
It's obvious to us though that calling security is a way to make ALL your customers unhappy, and should be avoided at whatever cost. They should have just kept raising their offer for passenger's seats, that would be the better protocol.
Overbookings are industry standard, and they called security for someone who wouldn't leave. "Correct" protocol.
I think what most likely happened is the security guard that has been placed on leave did his job very poorly. As soon as he hit the passenger his coworkers probably thought "Uh oh. We need to just get him out of here before this gets worse. Because this is not what's supposed to happen."
It's obvious to us though that calling security is a way to make ALL your customers unhappy, and should be avoided at whatever cost. They should have just kept raising their offer for passenger's seats, that would be the better protocol.
If you are the CEO of a public company, you know anything you write at all@<your_company> is, most likely, public record.
"They were just following protocol" is the new "Befehl ist Befehl" - also known as Nurember defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
The fact that a defenceless man has left a plane covered in blood should give everyone pause. They followed orders is a very poor response.
"They were just following protocol" is the new "Befehl ist Befehl" - also known as Nurember defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
The fact that a defenceless man has left a plane covered in blood should give everyone pause. They followed orders is a very poor response.
My comment was not meant to suggest that what happened was right.
My comment was meant to suggest that anger at the CEO for supporting his employees, who only called security, and didn't beat the guy up themselves, is misplaced. UA screwed up, but the email wasn't what went wrong.
The UA employees followed protocol by calling security. Protocols are generally in place for a reason, and they can be reworked. I don't think comparing overbooking to German soldiers entering a plea against war crimes is a good analogy.
My comment was meant to suggest that anger at the CEO for supporting his employees, who only called security, and didn't beat the guy up themselves, is misplaced. UA screwed up, but the email wasn't what went wrong.
The UA employees followed protocol by calling security. Protocols are generally in place for a reason, and they can be reworked. I don't think comparing overbooking to German soldiers entering a plea against war crimes is a good analogy.
We can argue what "be a cheerleader for them[employees]" means. If I were a United employee, I'd not be impressed by my employer. I'd feel ashamed of being part of an organization that has managed to escalate a logistical problem (because that's what we are talking about) into violence. I'd like to be proud of my employer and, today, I'd not feel great knowing my company is ok with beating up a harmless man. I'd seriously question the ethics and core value of my employer. As an employee, I'd like to know that /something/ went wrong in that situation - and we do not stand for violence. Frankly, that would cheer me up.
As comparing overbooking to German soldiers - the Nuremberg defense, despite originated from Nazi's trial, refers today to any account where "I was just following orders". It refers to /any/ situation where someone claims unaccountability because "it is the protocol". This is exactly the case. If the protocol accounts for beating up a passenger, are the employees unaccountable just because "that's what the manual says"? No, they are not. They are human beings and they could say "fuck the protocol". There are a million other ways to handle a logistical problem without the use of violence.
As comparing overbooking to German soldiers - the Nuremberg defense, despite originated from Nazi's trial, refers today to any account where "I was just following orders". It refers to /any/ situation where someone claims unaccountability because "it is the protocol". This is exactly the case. If the protocol accounts for beating up a passenger, are the employees unaccountable just because "that's what the manual says"? No, they are not. They are human beings and they could say "fuck the protocol". There are a million other ways to handle a logistical problem without the use of violence.
Ironic. I agree with your sentiment but find the opposite conclusion.
If I were a United employee I would also not be impressed. UA is now instantly associated with violence.
You want to know that something went wrong and that UA doesn't stand for violence, as most other employees would.
But that's what the letter's saying...
He says it right here:
He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his co-operation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
It's very clear to me that UA did not condone or suggest the violence against the passenger. The CEO's description of the events makes it clear to employees that this situation escalated out of control after they passed it off to security.
Just because you can apply it doesn't mean you should. You really need to define what protocol they have that you hate so much. The guard that attacked the passenger was placed on leave. Suggesting the violence wasn't protocol.
If I were a United employee I would also not be impressed. UA is now instantly associated with violence.
You want to know that something went wrong and that UA doesn't stand for violence, as most other employees would.
But that's what the letter's saying...
He says it right here:
He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his co-operation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
It's very clear to me that UA did not condone or suggest the violence against the passenger. The CEO's description of the events makes it clear to employees that this situation escalated out of control after they passed it off to security.
Just because you can apply it doesn't mean you should. You really need to define what protocol they have that you hate so much. The guard that attacked the passenger was placed on leave. Suggesting the violence wasn't protocol.
I think the video of this incident is frankly disgusting, but it's not clear without more context why the situation escalated to the degree it did. For example, UA fly another plane 3 hours 20 minutes later to the same destination (which is to say, a very reasonable and perfectly expectable delay in any situation involving air travel), why did the doc need to be on exactly that plane, and why did the UA staff also have to be on exactly that plane?
One point in favour of UA though, is that they're perfectly within their right to deny boarding for any reason whatsoever. Yes, it's completely a dick move on their part, but just because they're acting like dicks does not give a passenger the right to refuse disembarkation, it's not his aircraft.
FWIW I 100% think the passenger was mistreated regardless, just saying there aren't enough facts to pass judgement so easily
One point in favour of UA though, is that they're perfectly within their right to deny boarding for any reason whatsoever. Yes, it's completely a dick move on their part, but just because they're acting like dicks does not give a passenger the right to refuse disembarkation, it's not his aircraft.
FWIW I 100% think the passenger was mistreated regardless, just saying there aren't enough facts to pass judgement so easily
The replacement seat they were offering was a full day later. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/travel/questions-united-trnd/
I don't think most of the criticism on the case is about whether it was legal or not. Judgement is relatively easy as anyone can come up with ways how this could have been avoided. For example offering more money and maybe to anyone else than the doctor who needed to be on the plane. If the flight crew was not able to offer more money for the bump that's still United policy's fault. I don't think the points matter in this case :)
He was a Dr. going to work
The flight crew was going to work as well.
> why did the doc need to be on exactly that plane
I was answering to this.
I was answering to this.
He is allegedly a doctor, not a demigod. Someone else can cover his shift.
I feel the current system of overbooking and how it is "regulated" is backwards, and airlines should rethink. Perhaps they could do some sort of an auction without a maximum. It is their problem after all, and a market mechanism seems a reasonable way to deal with this. Sometimes this would mean someone who does not care as much will gladly take $150 as compensation. Other cases might lead to much higher numbers.
The next bit will probably not make me particularly popular, seeing most of the reactions to this debacle, but here goes.
The airplane itself is not a suitable place for any form of protest. No ifs, buts or anything else.
Once the flight personnel asks you to leave the airplane, you leave. Take the fight outside of the airplane, in court or wherever or however you deem appropriate. But not on the plane. Your work/patients/personal tragedy is in no way relevant. If you disagree with the service offered, don't use it. Vote with your feet and your wallet. Don't claim you have no alternatives or whatever. Society does not owe you your preferred lifestyle in any way.
If this guy refused to leave after he was asked to do so, according to the rules het agreed by upon entering an agreement, and I would be delayed by the ensuing situation, I would even consider pursuing some form of legal action towards him.
Having said all that, I do feel the way commercial air travel is organised these days is beyond ridiculous. I therefore avoid it whenever and however I can. If more people did that, it would have changed by now. People don't, so it doesn't. Because most just feel entitled to whatever they feel entitled to, without any basis. Fuck them.
Oh, and screw airlines too.
The next bit will probably not make me particularly popular, seeing most of the reactions to this debacle, but here goes.
The airplane itself is not a suitable place for any form of protest. No ifs, buts or anything else.
Once the flight personnel asks you to leave the airplane, you leave. Take the fight outside of the airplane, in court or wherever or however you deem appropriate. But not on the plane. Your work/patients/personal tragedy is in no way relevant. If you disagree with the service offered, don't use it. Vote with your feet and your wallet. Don't claim you have no alternatives or whatever. Society does not owe you your preferred lifestyle in any way.
If this guy refused to leave after he was asked to do so, according to the rules het agreed by upon entering an agreement, and I would be delayed by the ensuing situation, I would even consider pursuing some form of legal action towards him.
Having said all that, I do feel the way commercial air travel is organised these days is beyond ridiculous. I therefore avoid it whenever and however I can. If more people did that, it would have changed by now. People don't, so it doesn't. Because most just feel entitled to whatever they feel entitled to, without any basis. Fuck them.
Oh, and screw airlines too.
The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit.
There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending their staff on another flight.
This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their monetary needs.
Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary force.
There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending their staff on another flight.
This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their monetary needs.
Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary force.
That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit.
Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera."
This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.
Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera."
This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.
Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt.
So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
Again, an absurd and grandiose interpretation. You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." If a Police officer violates the law, you cannot comply with them. If they use physical intimidation, they are not acting as an officer of the law. You are a citizen with an obligation to comply to the legal extent, not a slave to the whims of officers.
> You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say."
In what sense? You can say that you only have to comply with lawful orders, but unless the cop believes their own order to be unlawful, which is unlikely, they're going to force you to comply. And if you're wrong about the order being lawful, you will get hit with resisting arrest, which will only make life harder for you in fighting it.
If you want to put a stop to it, do so in the courtroom. Do it on the streets and you'll be tasered and accomplish nothing.
In what sense? You can say that you only have to comply with lawful orders, but unless the cop believes their own order to be unlawful, which is unlikely, they're going to force you to comply. And if you're wrong about the order being lawful, you will get hit with resisting arrest, which will only make life harder for you in fighting it.
If you want to put a stop to it, do so in the courtroom. Do it on the streets and you'll be tasered and accomplish nothing.
Who was being arrested? "Resisting" isn't some magic phrase that turns a simple encounter into a mugging by the state, sorry. As for risk, if you're a police officer you've chosen to protect and serve the public, which is a sacrifice; if you can't potentially take the risks to make that sacrifice... find a new damned job, we don't need or want you.
What is needed is extensive revamping of legislation to curb both police powers, and equipment, starting with an end to the war on drugs and associated weaponry/vehicles/agencies.
What is needed is extensive revamping of legislation to curb both police powers, and equipment, starting with an end to the war on drugs and associated weaponry/vehicles/agencies.
The difference is in the rate of escalation. In the US, non-compliance can lead to violence really, really quickly.
On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. If, on average, people went quietly with the police and fought this in the court system, things would change for the better.
>On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops.
Compared to... people with no contact with the police? You cant actually be saying that the average arrest is resisted, can you?
Compared to... people with no contact with the police? You cant actually be saying that the average arrest is resisted, can you?
Normally one would make an apples to apples comparison of the average of arrested people in both populations, instead of trying to include the people who weren't arrested for reasons I'm not at all clear on.
What I mean is, that if that is the proposition on the table, don't take it.
I think what surprises people is that that proposition was on the table in the first place. Maybe it's specified in the fine print of the contract, but it violates most people's sense of fairness and decency.
The thing is, on a plane the crew is king and you have to follow their orders. If they decide that you have to leave the plane, you must leave the plane. Now, their reasons might be questionable. You have every right to fight the airline once you are off the plane. But there is no room for this while on board. Basically, as soon as he started to refuse to follow the crew's orders, it was a lost case for him.
Not exactly: the crew’s first duty is to protect passengers’ safety. In that regard, they are allowed to compel passengers and can do things like confiscate alcohol for disinfection and demand that a surgeon operates a dying patient/passenger. They are allowed to flag a passenger as rowdy or suspicious. They are not allowed to demand that a passenger disembark for other reasons than security.
Harming a passenger when you had a peaceful solution available is the exact opposite of what they are meant to do.
Harming a passenger when you had a peaceful solution available is the exact opposite of what they are meant to do.
The crew didn't harm him. They asked the passenger multiple times to leave. When he refused they asked airport security to remove him. Airport security asked him multiple times to leave, and when he refused they dragged him out and he bumped his face against an arm rest.
No that is not true. You do not have to put yourself in physical danger. You do not need to comply with abuse of others. You do not need to be complicit in illegal activity.
The crew is not "King." They have an expanded set of duties they can enforce.
This sort of grandiose interpretation of the law is why we have absurd egotistical displays of violence in the name of non-offenses.
The crew is not "King." They have an expanded set of duties they can enforce.
This sort of grandiose interpretation of the law is why we have absurd egotistical displays of violence in the name of non-offenses.
s/plane/bus/g
s/leave/sit in the back of/g
s/leave/sit in the back of/g
Well, one of the differences is that it's easier to kick someone off a bus mid-travel. That's why the rules are different. Also, racial discrimination ist still illegal on a plane. Just don't fight this fight while on the plane.
Please don't compare this to the civil rights movement. Police brutality is not a good thing, but the injustices that started that movement were orders of magnitude greater.
Have you been paying attention to how muslims (including US citizens) are being treated on planes and in airports?
What about the security apparatus that underpins the no fly list and is feeding this comment into your "is this a terrorist" machine learning profile?
What about the idea that corporations (like private prisons) sometimes have the right to completely ignore due process?
Please stop acting like everything is OK and this is not about civil rights.
What about the security apparatus that underpins the no fly list and is feeding this comment into your "is this a terrorist" machine learning profile?
What about the idea that corporations (like private prisons) sometimes have the right to completely ignore due process?
Please stop acting like everything is OK and this is not about civil rights.
This isn't a case of a man being refused the right to fly because he is muslim. The guy was chosen at random. There are plenty of recent incidents that could reasonably be compared to rosa parks refusing to move from the front of the bus, but this isn't one of them.
The plane couldn't leave until this person left. So there was a plane full of people who couldn't leave because of this jerk.
And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out. Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest.
It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from the overbooking system. We also benefit from having our flights not be canceled when the air crew isn't able to show up on time.
And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out. Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest.
It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from the overbooking system. We also benefit from having our flights not be canceled when the air crew isn't able to show up on time.
The plane absolutely could have left, entirely full of ticketed passengers. United held the plane to force this scenario -- since they wanted to replace ticketed paid passengers with their own staff to fly for free.
A pilot will not leave if they have a passenger on board who refuses to follow instructions by the crew. If you feel like you are treated unjustly (which might very well be the case here), take the fight off the plane.
Really? Would a plane not leave if the crew requested you remove your clothes and fly naked? Would it not leave if they forced you to fight another passenger?
There was no safety issue, and the crew only has power over you in the event of an issue of safety. There was no such issue.
There was no safety issue, and the crew only has power over you in the event of an issue of safety. There was no such issue.
Their "staff" was a flight crew that needed to get to Louisville or another plane full of 200 passengers would be stuck on the tarmac unable to fly.
Ah, and UA didn't knew it before the people boarded? So, not only they are morons, but they are totally incompetents.
I have not seen such ridiculous defence of something indefendible like you're doing on this thread.
I have not seen such ridiculous defence of something indefendible like you're doing on this thread.
They should have just shot the jerk. After all, we ALL benefit. Who cares about the rights and the blood shed of one person. We ALL benefit. The airline had NO OTHER CHOICE in the matter. They couldn't have offered more compensation to give up seats. I'll bet $800 cash would have done the trick. Everyone knows $800 flight coupons are pretty worthless. They couldn't have put their employees on other flights. Nope, there weren't any other options other than forcibly removing this one passenger so that we ALL benefit. A little bloodshed is nothing in the world of commerce.
The plane could leave at any time. It could leave with him on it and the staff member standing in the terminal. It could leave with another passenger exiting.
To be fair, the passenger thought he bought a "ticket", a fungible item which allowed the bearer transport. What he did was enter into a contractual agreement with an airline and the post-9/11 security infrastructure that expects passengers to shut up and obey. It's easy to make this mistake. The airlines still call them "tickets".
Of course it could have. They let him sit down. It's bizarre they couldn't figure this out before letting people on the airplane.
I disagree about airplane / airport protests. First, air travel is increasingly a prerequisite to meaningful participation in the modern economy. That means it should be treated as a right, not a privilege.
Second, most of the encounters people have with institutionalized racism and arbitrary violations of civil rights involve air travel.
The unconstitutional "constitution-free" zones are exactly the place protests should occur. The current situation is akin to "blacks sit in back" of buses in the US. It is better in some ways better, and worse in others. The mix of victims skews to different socioeconomic groups (muslims, middle-lower class) than the old Jim Crow laws (and it is easier to avoid the airport than public roadways) but that doesn't make the current situation OK.
Anyway, history has decided Rosa Parks was a hero. I think it will eventually make the same call with respect to air travel.
Second, most of the encounters people have with institutionalized racism and arbitrary violations of civil rights involve air travel.
The unconstitutional "constitution-free" zones are exactly the place protests should occur. The current situation is akin to "blacks sit in back" of buses in the US. It is better in some ways better, and worse in others. The mix of victims skews to different socioeconomic groups (muslims, middle-lower class) than the old Jim Crow laws (and it is easier to avoid the airport than public roadways) but that doesn't make the current situation OK.
Anyway, history has decided Rosa Parks was a hero. I think it will eventually make the same call with respect to air travel.
1. The flight was not overbooked, they wanted to eject holders of confirmed reserved seats in favor of their own employees in contravention of 14 CFR 250.2a.
2. Overbooking rules can only be used to deny boarding. The passenger had already boarded.
3. United's own Contract of Carriage enumerates for "Refusal of Transport" in rule 21. None of the rules apply.
What United did was illegal, plain and simple. They may have made false statements to authorities to get him ejected as well.
2. Overbooking rules can only be used to deny boarding. The passenger had already boarded.
3. United's own Contract of Carriage enumerates for "Refusal of Transport" in rule 21. None of the rules apply.
What United did was illegal, plain and simple. They may have made false statements to authorities to get him ejected as well.
I'm sure some lawyer will try to go down this path for the alleged physician. But the reality is the flight crew has the right to kick anyone off the plane, and they need to have that right.
Not true. UA has a Contract of Carriage that specifically enumerates the possible reasons they can use to deny boarding or remove someone from a flight. There is no "catch-all" in it.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
"Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions"
> Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
I think that this case was about "acts of God" because I don't find any other reason to be force majeure.
I think that this case was about "acts of God" because I don't find any other reason to be force majeure.
I believe this is almost the definition of a foreseeable condition!
In this case, though, the flight was not overbooked. They forcibly removed an otherwise compliant passenger so that their own employees could get a ride.
I completely disagree with your advice. If you truly care about something
you should protest against it immediately.
In spirit, to protest the injustice as it happens seems right. However in a world of laws, it is seldom the effective or meaningful action. I would have full knowledge that a lawyer would sort this, and keep my cool, not that you should have to.
The real advice here is to vote with your dollar.
The real advice here is to vote with your dollar.
That IS my advice.. immediately stop using their services. It will come at a cost of convenience to yourself of course.
Ignoring the physical assault, this sounds about par for United customer support...
I've been avoiding United for years, but a few years ago, a few friends wanted to be picked up at the airport after United flights. Over 50% of them bought tickets for flights that didn't exist, and were instead consolidated onto other, later, flights.
Airlines should have to pay large multiples of ticket prices (in cash) to passengers that encounter a schedule change or overbooking. As the overbookings increase, the refunds should grow exponentially. (2x if 0.1% are bumped, 4x if 0.2, then 8x, 16x, etc).
If they didn't change their behavior, United would have to pay out its market cap in a matter of days, which is exactly what they deserve for systematically abusing customers for at least a decade.
I've been avoiding United for years, but a few years ago, a few friends wanted to be picked up at the airport after United flights. Over 50% of them bought tickets for flights that didn't exist, and were instead consolidated onto other, later, flights.
Airlines should have to pay large multiples of ticket prices (in cash) to passengers that encounter a schedule change or overbooking. As the overbookings increase, the refunds should grow exponentially. (2x if 0.1% are bumped, 4x if 0.2, then 8x, 16x, etc).
If they didn't change their behavior, United would have to pay out its market cap in a matter of days, which is exactly what they deserve for systematically abusing customers for at least a decade.
Jimmy Kimmel pointed out the main reason why they get away with this.
“The next time we book a flight, it doesn’t matter if it’s United or Delta or American, if one of those flights is a dollar less than the other one, that’s the one we’ll pick. They know this. That’s why we’re stuck with them.”
I don't understand the dynamics of how it ended up this way. Air travel used to be a luxury, and had fairly high margins. The race to the bottom has inspired a lot of terrible practice...unbundling things like "baggage fees", pushing load factors beyond what's reasonable, increasingly smaller seats, etc.
“The next time we book a flight, it doesn’t matter if it’s United or Delta or American, if one of those flights is a dollar less than the other one, that’s the one we’ll pick. They know this. That’s why we’re stuck with them.”
I don't understand the dynamics of how it ended up this way. Air travel used to be a luxury, and had fairly high margins. The race to the bottom has inspired a lot of terrible practice...unbundling things like "baggage fees", pushing load factors beyond what's reasonable, increasingly smaller seats, etc.
One word: deregulation.
It's been a very sharp double-edged sword: on the one hand, it gave us effective competitors like Southwest and jetBlue forcing the "legacy" carriers to compete on price and routes, enabling far more people to be able to fly. On the other, it caused the legacy carriers compete on price, not service (the only thing they could really compete on before deregulation).
Personally, I fly Southwest and jetBlue when I'm in the US, but to get there, I end up on Delta/KLM/Air France. The prices are usually around what the legacy carriers are, but they have pretty much maintained the level of service they started with (Southwest famously never had meal service, only packets of peanuts). I think because they never got into the habit of cutting back a little bit each year, they haven't gotten into the same downward spiral the legacy carriers seem to have.
It's been a very sharp double-edged sword: on the one hand, it gave us effective competitors like Southwest and jetBlue forcing the "legacy" carriers to compete on price and routes, enabling far more people to be able to fly. On the other, it caused the legacy carriers compete on price, not service (the only thing they could really compete on before deregulation).
Personally, I fly Southwest and jetBlue when I'm in the US, but to get there, I end up on Delta/KLM/Air France. The prices are usually around what the legacy carriers are, but they have pretty much maintained the level of service they started with (Southwest famously never had meal service, only packets of peanuts). I think because they never got into the habit of cutting back a little bit each year, they haven't gotten into the same downward spiral the legacy carriers seem to have.
There's more than just deregulation. Post 9/11, the airlines made changes to deal with the temporary (~3 year) lull in demand. They didn't pull those changes back after demand came back in spades. These were things like tighter seat pitch, higher average load factors, bag fees, bigger change fees, shifting capacity to higher margin international flights, etc.
I'm sure there are more factors as well. Flying is just a chore these days. And there's not much granularity of choice. There's 'cattle class', and the jump in price to something better (business, first) is huge...and does little for large parts of the bad experience. Compare to say, hotels, where there are many tiers of quality you can choose from.
I'm sure there are more factors as well. Flying is just a chore these days. And there's not much granularity of choice. There's 'cattle class', and the jump in price to something better (business, first) is huge...and does little for large parts of the bad experience. Compare to say, hotels, where there are many tiers of quality you can choose from.
Deregulation is the reason the middle class can afford to fly at all. Pre-deregulation, a Boston-LA flight would be $500 in 1978 dollars.
[deleted]
Yeah, but pre-deregulation there were plenty of seats for employees and dependents to fly and airlines were making money. Airlines didn't have to have police with rubber hoses beat randomly selected passengers until they could be dragged off the plane. Source: dad was a middle-class airline employee during this period. I flew on his pass. Could not wear tights, though. I am currently a middle-class schmuck. Don't fly because I'd rather stab myself in the eye..and, oh, can't afford to.
Isn't that what most of HN is so frantically behind? Free markets at work, deregulated to the point of making little to no economic profit, no consumer protections, and what you call a "race to the bottom" is actually what occurs under perfectly competitive markets.
Thinking you can have the good parts of competition without the bad parts and being surprised when something happens according to basic economic theory is economic doublethink at its finest.
PS: I'm all for cheap flights. It has allowed the working class (and myself) to travel and see the world and not go broke doing it. Hard to imagine but people outside of the IT bubble have to budget for vacations and having cheap flights helps a ton. Ultimately, incidents like these are so rare compared to the passenger volume that it makes no sense for a regular person to worry about it happening to them.
Thinking you can have the good parts of competition without the bad parts and being surprised when something happens according to basic economic theory is economic doublethink at its finest.
PS: I'm all for cheap flights. It has allowed the working class (and myself) to travel and see the world and not go broke doing it. Hard to imagine but people outside of the IT bubble have to budget for vacations and having cheap flights helps a ton. Ultimately, incidents like these are so rare compared to the passenger volume that it makes no sense for a regular person to worry about it happening to them.
>Thinking you can have the good parts of competition without the bad parts
Er, okay. There are other products and services with heavy competition that aren't a terrible experience. There's more going on here than just generic capitalism.
Er, okay. There are other products and services with heavy competition that aren't a terrible experience. There's more going on here than just generic capitalism.
You have the option of paying more for a less terrible experience. Pricing is also customizable, allowing you to target the exact part of the experience you find terrible.
There's really only two tiers, and the price jump is crazy. And does nothing for large parts of the bad experience.
I disagree, the flying experience is much more segmented than 2 tiers in the US. Each airline has an a la carte menu of experience configurations.
More legroom? Premium Economy (or business/first class) Aisle seat? Pay for seat selection. Slow boarding? Pay for priority. No food? Onboard purchases. Security line too long? TSA Precheck. Long lines at immigration? Global Entry.
Whether you're willing to purchase these upgrades is a personal decision, the options are there.
In your original post you commented about the pricing "race to the bottom" and the "unbundling of baggage fees". Unbundling means more granular pricing segmentation to attract a higher volume of customers.
More legroom? Premium Economy (or business/first class) Aisle seat? Pay for seat selection. Slow boarding? Pay for priority. No food? Onboard purchases. Security line too long? TSA Precheck. Long lines at immigration? Global Entry.
Whether you're willing to purchase these upgrades is a personal decision, the options are there.
In your original post you commented about the pricing "race to the bottom" and the "unbundling of baggage fees". Unbundling means more granular pricing segmentation to attract a higher volume of customers.
Of course, I'm aware of these things, but I still stick to the 2 tiers of service. The unbundling doesn't really create a new tier of service, it's just poor customer service. Hotels could charge extra for pillows. And TSA precheck and Global entry are not airline offered services.
Paying for an aisle seat is a thing only because seat pitch has been squeezed over the years to where a middle seat sucks.
> Er, okay. There are other products and services with heavy competition that aren't a terrible experience.
Please, elaborate, and be specific about the regulation present in the sale of those products and services.
Please, elaborate, and be specific about the regulation present in the sale of those products and services.
Are you asking for highly regulated products and services that aren't terrible?
If so, automobile manufacturing is highly regulated, as is banking. Plenty of competition exists. In both, I have a very granular range of choices at different price points, and have no trouble finding ones I am happy with. Airlines generally have two tiers of service, and business/first does nothing for large parts of what makes the experience terrible.
Or are you asking about less regulated industries, like hotels or restaurants?
Or maybe things that are completely unregulated?
If so, automobile manufacturing is highly regulated, as is banking. Plenty of competition exists. In both, I have a very granular range of choices at different price points, and have no trouble finding ones I am happy with. Airlines generally have two tiers of service, and business/first does nothing for large parts of what makes the experience terrible.
Or are you asking about less regulated industries, like hotels or restaurants?
Or maybe things that are completely unregulated?
In this case, the service being offered by the airline is the booking itself.
Your manufacturing analogy isn't appropriate, since they have to meet a minimum standard of safety for the product being sold. It is regulated heavily, because it deals with the potential loss of human life.
What's more reliable - a flight that departs on time every time or the aircraft that performs the flight? (In case it isn't obvious, it's a rhetorical question)
> as is banking
Sure, if we're talking about the safety of putting your money in a CD, which offer no consumer utility whatsoever. It's actually not a service for the consumer, since the bank is the one that makes money on the deposit.
A better analogy would have been different credit cards, which is quite a predatory service that, in theory, is possible to benefit from by the consumer, but in practice has little consumer protection if the "incentives" of the cards expire.
What I was asking for, and sorry if the intent wasn't clear, were products and services without consumer protection that offer surplus utility to the consumer beyond the service itself, that aren't terrible. If you have a rudimentary knowledge of economics, you'll know it's a trick question, though.
Your manufacturing analogy isn't appropriate, since they have to meet a minimum standard of safety for the product being sold. It is regulated heavily, because it deals with the potential loss of human life.
What's more reliable - a flight that departs on time every time or the aircraft that performs the flight? (In case it isn't obvious, it's a rhetorical question)
> as is banking
Sure, if we're talking about the safety of putting your money in a CD, which offer no consumer utility whatsoever. It's actually not a service for the consumer, since the bank is the one that makes money on the deposit.
A better analogy would have been different credit cards, which is quite a predatory service that, in theory, is possible to benefit from by the consumer, but in practice has little consumer protection if the "incentives" of the cards expire.
What I was asking for, and sorry if the intent wasn't clear, were products and services without consumer protection that offer surplus utility to the consumer beyond the service itself, that aren't terrible. If you have a rudimentary knowledge of economics, you'll know it's a trick question, though.
I feel like some goalposts just moved.
Cars can be safe, but still crappy. Only part of their function is regulated.
Similar for banks. My bank provides great online functionality, friendly service, and more they aren't obligated to do.
Cars can be safe, but still crappy. Only part of their function is regulated.
Similar for banks. My bank provides great online functionality, friendly service, and more they aren't obligated to do.
> Isn't that what most of HN is so
Such perceptions are common but usually in the eye of the beholder. HN is divided about such things.
Such perceptions are common but usually in the eye of the beholder. HN is divided about such things.
Relevant info: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights
Short version: if bumped, you're legally entitled to a cash payout equal to 2x fare cost.
Short version: if bumped, you're legally entitled to a cash payout equal to 2x fare cost.
4x up to $1350 if the delay is more than 4 hours, actually.
While I'm sure it's possible an employee forwarded this email without official authorization, it is unlikely this email was written without the expectation that it would eventually make its way into the press. IOW, it's been written with the public as its ultimate audience, I wouldn't assume that it has anything that the CEO didn't want the world to know.
Overbooking is an indefensible practice. You sell a service that you knowingly have no intention to provide to people who base their travel plans on that expectation. This is like playing Russian roulette with your customers. No sympathy for United.
How is this an over sold (overbook) situation? The flight was not overbooked. It was United that added employees that shouldn't have and I'm more and more convinced they did it illegally.
Without overbooking, your plane ticket would cost roughly 10% more. So go ahead and start a "non-overbooking" airline, and see how popular you are with customers.
I love how they say he was advised that he was "denied boarding." Here's a tip: If I'm in a seat, you've already let me board. And if you planned poorly then that isn't my problem.
Unlike any other industry of which I am aware, airlines are unbelievably skilled at making their problems their customers problems and then not apologizing for it.
Unlike any other industry of which I am aware, airlines are unbelievably skilled at making their problems their customers problems and then not apologizing for it.
10,000 flights a day, 365 days a year, sometimes the most improbable things happen.
And once you are in your seat, doesn't mean you can't be asked to leave.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
And once you are in your seat, doesn't mean you can't be asked to leave.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
[deleted]
Can someone explain how this was an "oversales" situation since the plane was actually fully booked and not over sold, and with that how United's action didn't violate the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageI...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageI...
It simply wasn't - until United's crew members came on board. And United put prioritize employees over its boarded customers (if there are going to bump passengers out, they should never issue boarding pass in the first place).
Reading the law, it seems very much like prioritizing employees over passengers is actually illegal.
I don't actually think so. Prioritising employees may very well be essential to the continued or optimal operation of your airline.
For example, getting person A to a city so they can crew in place of a sick employee, where otherwise we would have a plane with no pilot.
For example, getting person A to a city so they can crew in place of a sick employee, where otherwise we would have a plane with no pilot.
> Prioritising employees may very well be essential to the continued or optimal operation of your airline
But that doesn't seem to be legal. It wasn't an oversold flight and the rule is "In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily."
The airline didn't do that because ensuring the "smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space" would mean the non-flight employees get bumped not the passengers.
But that doesn't seem to be legal. It wasn't an oversold flight and the rule is "In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily."
The airline didn't do that because ensuring the "smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space" would mean the non-flight employees get bumped not the passengers.
Their claim is that rules for what happens to passengers in the case of an oversold flight shouldn't apply, because this flight wasn't oversold and incorrectly boarded.
Instead, employees never count towards overselling in the flight, but if their aren't enough employee-only seats, they'll take a customer seat instead.
Regardless, this is all a civil matter, and in civil matters you do not have the right to physically fight with staff or the police because you aren't getting your way. Instead, you go to court.
Instead, employees never count towards overselling in the flight, but if their aren't enough employee-only seats, they'll take a customer seat instead.
Regardless, this is all a civil matter, and in civil matters you do not have the right to physically fight with staff or the police because you aren't getting your way. Instead, you go to court.
From the cost perspective in retrospect, it's going to save them at least hundreds of millions from the tarnished branding, stock market lost and future lawsuits if their employees were to take a taxi / coach bus / or even private charter flights to commute.
They have booted people from planes before. I don't know they could have predicted this market reaction in the past.
This is what happens when you normalize violence, you focus on the blaming and legal stuff instead and you get people like this CEO but no one is reacting to the fact that a human being has been knocked out, dragged out like an animal for something he didn't have to give up. He had a legitimate reason not to give up his seat, he had patients he needed to see the next day. The airline CANNOT act like the computer is right all the time (they said for randomizing the seats to give up) and they should've been humans to understand and pick someone else or increase their incentives.
Remember, the flight was NOT overbooked. They said they needed to get their four employees to a different state, so they wanted four people off the plane. This is all spinning by the airline, listen to the specifics.
I don't care whose fault it was, there was absolutely no need for that violence in the first place, the escalation was not justified in any situations. The protocol needs to be changed, that's what people need to start asking for. Change the policy to include exemptions such as doctors or others (firefighters, cops, etc), increase the incentives and so on.
The airline should've done its job correctly by informing their customers BEFORE boarding the plane and upping the incentives until it gets their goal. The customers should not be forced to give up what they paid before because the airline screwed up.
I could care less that overbooking is a common thing. The society should not be about protecting the profits of the companies, they should be promoting the humanity and moving it further. This is a huge regression by allowing the companies to have more power.
Remember, the flight was NOT overbooked. They said they needed to get their four employees to a different state, so they wanted four people off the plane. This is all spinning by the airline, listen to the specifics.
I don't care whose fault it was, there was absolutely no need for that violence in the first place, the escalation was not justified in any situations. The protocol needs to be changed, that's what people need to start asking for. Change the policy to include exemptions such as doctors or others (firefighters, cops, etc), increase the incentives and so on.
The airline should've done its job correctly by informing their customers BEFORE boarding the plane and upping the incentives until it gets their goal. The customers should not be forced to give up what they paid before because the airline screwed up.
I could care less that overbooking is a common thing. The society should not be about protecting the profits of the companies, they should be promoting the humanity and moving it further. This is a huge regression by allowing the companies to have more power.
> He had a legitimate reason not to give up his seat
This is true until an officer of the law asked him to get off the plane. Argument time happens before that, and after that in court. But at that point, you're being ordered off a plane by a law enforcement officer. When you don't comply there's only one way for it to proceed at that point.
> The airline CANNOT act like the computer is right all the time
It was the police officers who were right when they ordered the man off the plane.
This is true until an officer of the law asked him to get off the plane. Argument time happens before that, and after that in court. But at that point, you're being ordered off a plane by a law enforcement officer. When you don't comply there's only one way for it to proceed at that point.
> The airline CANNOT act like the computer is right all the time
It was the police officers who were right when they ordered the man off the plane.
The airline called the cops to enforce its rights; the cops could've ordered everyone off the plane to de-escalate the situation peacefully, which should've be done in the first place due to the space constraint in there causing safety concerns. What if the guy wanted to fight? Other customers could've gotten hurt. I've been in that situation before the cops ordered everyone to disperse first.
They could've listen and ask if anyone else would be willing to give up their seat for the doctor.
There are many options and based on the videos and what the other passengers said, the airline nor the cops gone through all of them before escalating the situation like this.
Sorry, the cops were in the wrong as well. They may have all the laws on their side I'm sure but if we treat cops as right all the time, we normalize their behaviors as acceptable as well.
They could've listen and ask if anyone else would be willing to give up their seat for the doctor.
There are many options and based on the videos and what the other passengers said, the airline nor the cops gone through all of them before escalating the situation like this.
Sorry, the cops were in the wrong as well. They may have all the laws on their side I'm sure but if we treat cops as right all the time, we normalize their behaviors as acceptable as well.
Nope. An officer of the law can be ignored when they give unlawful orders or requests. The police had no business being involved in this situation, there was no crime being committed, and the passenger was not obligated to give up their seat once they were boarded and not in breach of the contract of carriage, which they weren't in any way.
Using your logic, if an officer of the law orders you to murder someone, when you don't comply there is only one way for it to proceed.
It's basically shitty logic, you should stop doing that. Hurts your brain and others' too.
The police overstepped their authority.
Using your logic, if an officer of the law orders you to murder someone, when you don't comply there is only one way for it to proceed.
It's basically shitty logic, you should stop doing that. Hurts your brain and others' too.
The police overstepped their authority.
I just wish people would stop repeating that this was an overbooking issue, it wasn't. Customers were being forced off the plane to allow employees on after the fact. That has nothing to do with overbooking.
United used to only break guitars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars
Now they break passengers, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars
Now they break passengers, too.
It's time to finally have an air passenger bill of rights as law!
Seriously, next time this happens how about raising the compensation for someone willing to take the later flight.
The Aircrew could announce on the PA that "we're very sorry that the fligth will be be delayed but we're overbooked and still looking for X ppl willing to take the next flight. We're offering a X $ compensation for your trouble."
Then you just increase X until you will find people willing to take the deal.
Idiots.
The Aircrew could announce on the PA that "we're very sorry that the fligth will be be delayed but we're overbooked and still looking for X ppl willing to take the next flight. We're offering a X $ compensation for your trouble."
Then you just increase X until you will find people willing to take the deal.
Idiots.
They went up to $800 and got no takers. $800 is what United has to pay for involuntarily bumping someone. So clearly United company policy is to not pay anything above that (other airlines will). This is what bit them in the ass here.
As it turns out the explanations are completely false, as in, not based on facts:
a. It wasn't overbooked. It was apparently exactly 100% booked and filled. Four paying customers were replaced by four non-paying crew. That is not an overbook situation, so United's entire rule 25 in the contract of carriage doesn't apply.
b. The removed customer didn't violate a single listed reason under rule 21 of the contract of carriage. Where else in the contract is passenger removal permitted?
c. Even if it were an overbooking, the airline's contract only says boarding can be denied. It doesn't say anything about rescinding an authorization to board, i.e. changing their mind.
What's going on here, are unwritten rules that they just made up out of thin air, convinced the police they exist, and got the police to do their dirty work. That rule is "upon refusal to comply with a polite request, the airline will petition an ignorant police force to (violently) remove the passenger from the plane."
This perverted, uncivilized, unwritten rule needs to be challenged. I hope this passenger takes them to court without settling. It needs to become part of the public record. If he settles, the details will get buried behind a non-disclosure agreement, and we won't actually learn that it's the airline who violated their own contract of carriage, and the police almost certainly broke the law not just their policies, in physically removing this person from the plane.
And unfortunately most of the media has spread false information by saying that the airline can have a person thrown off a plane for pretty much any reason, which is only true if you agree. If you look at the written contract, removal in this case is not supportable, even with a very vivid imagination.
a. It wasn't overbooked. It was apparently exactly 100% booked and filled. Four paying customers were replaced by four non-paying crew. That is not an overbook situation, so United's entire rule 25 in the contract of carriage doesn't apply.
b. The removed customer didn't violate a single listed reason under rule 21 of the contract of carriage. Where else in the contract is passenger removal permitted?
c. Even if it were an overbooking, the airline's contract only says boarding can be denied. It doesn't say anything about rescinding an authorization to board, i.e. changing their mind.
What's going on here, are unwritten rules that they just made up out of thin air, convinced the police they exist, and got the police to do their dirty work. That rule is "upon refusal to comply with a polite request, the airline will petition an ignorant police force to (violently) remove the passenger from the plane."
This perverted, uncivilized, unwritten rule needs to be challenged. I hope this passenger takes them to court without settling. It needs to become part of the public record. If he settles, the details will get buried behind a non-disclosure agreement, and we won't actually learn that it's the airline who violated their own contract of carriage, and the police almost certainly broke the law not just their policies, in physically removing this person from the plane.
And unfortunately most of the media has spread false information by saying that the airline can have a person thrown off a plane for pretty much any reason, which is only true if you agree. If you look at the written contract, removal in this case is not supportable, even with a very vivid imagination.
How to fix this problem:
1. Hand out prefilled in vouchers/checks to all the passengers with the amount filled in, which become valid when redeemed at the counter. There's an irrational human thing that people hate losing something they have more than they like gaining something[1], so helping to feel like they are losing the $800 voucher by not redeeming it would be more beneficial. I imagine that having the (fake) voucher/check in their hand would increase voluntary rates by a lot (and lower the compensation the airlines would need to pay), while only increasing some paper printing costs.
--- Other ideas ---
1b. Add in language during ticket purchase saying "To keep prices low, bla bla bla, 1 in 20,000 passengers may be unable to fly. Purchase protection from this event for $1". The passengers that don't purchase that protection would then be eligible for denied boarding, but at least they had more of a choice. Although, it still feels like "guaranteed seat" should just be included by default when you purchase a ticket (as I type this, it feels insane that "guaranteed seat" would be an upsell... but that seems to be the case).
1c. Offer more in compensation to passengers (obvious). This is not like eminent domain, where you need 100% of people in a given area to agree to something. You only need 4/100 passengers to agree to something, it truly can work like an auction.
--- Other thoughts ---
1. Everyone is blaming United for this event, but is there a different US airline who this event couldn't have happened to? They all have involuntary boardings, and presumably if you choose not to go peacefully, the airline will involve law enforcement. The only reason people leave peacefully when they don't want to is because they know the airline has the ultimate physical control.
2. Jimmy Kimmel mentioned it, but you just cannot imagine this happening in any other industry. Being kicked out of a restaurant table after being seated, being kicked out of a hotel room just checked into, etc.
3. The management of United seems completely out of touch with sentiment and reality, given their statements. Using the word "re-accomodate" in a three sentence statement seems like a symptom of a larger problem... it should have been obvious how people would react to that. I believe they are so deep into their philosophy of "this is how the industry works" that they have lost sense of the bigger customer picture. It's really as simple as: He bought a confirmed ticket with real money->boarded the plane->told ticket is no longer valid and kicked off. No amount of industry financial rationalization will change that.
4. This is still a rare issue, only about 1 in 15,000 flyers in the US is involuntarily denied boarding[2]. That said, United has 5x the rate as Delta, so this problem is not inherently terrible everywhere in the industry. Worth noting that this flight was operated by Republic, not United.
--Citations--
[1] https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-buyers-and-sellers-inherently-di...
[2]http://6331-presscdn-0-25.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/u...
1. Hand out prefilled in vouchers/checks to all the passengers with the amount filled in, which become valid when redeemed at the counter. There's an irrational human thing that people hate losing something they have more than they like gaining something[1], so helping to feel like they are losing the $800 voucher by not redeeming it would be more beneficial. I imagine that having the (fake) voucher/check in their hand would increase voluntary rates by a lot (and lower the compensation the airlines would need to pay), while only increasing some paper printing costs.
--- Other ideas ---
1b. Add in language during ticket purchase saying "To keep prices low, bla bla bla, 1 in 20,000 passengers may be unable to fly. Purchase protection from this event for $1". The passengers that don't purchase that protection would then be eligible for denied boarding, but at least they had more of a choice. Although, it still feels like "guaranteed seat" should just be included by default when you purchase a ticket (as I type this, it feels insane that "guaranteed seat" would be an upsell... but that seems to be the case).
1c. Offer more in compensation to passengers (obvious). This is not like eminent domain, where you need 100% of people in a given area to agree to something. You only need 4/100 passengers to agree to something, it truly can work like an auction.
--- Other thoughts ---
1. Everyone is blaming United for this event, but is there a different US airline who this event couldn't have happened to? They all have involuntary boardings, and presumably if you choose not to go peacefully, the airline will involve law enforcement. The only reason people leave peacefully when they don't want to is because they know the airline has the ultimate physical control.
2. Jimmy Kimmel mentioned it, but you just cannot imagine this happening in any other industry. Being kicked out of a restaurant table after being seated, being kicked out of a hotel room just checked into, etc.
3. The management of United seems completely out of touch with sentiment and reality, given their statements. Using the word "re-accomodate" in a three sentence statement seems like a symptom of a larger problem... it should have been obvious how people would react to that. I believe they are so deep into their philosophy of "this is how the industry works" that they have lost sense of the bigger customer picture. It's really as simple as: He bought a confirmed ticket with real money->boarded the plane->told ticket is no longer valid and kicked off. No amount of industry financial rationalization will change that.
4. This is still a rare issue, only about 1 in 15,000 flyers in the US is involuntarily denied boarding[2]. That said, United has 5x the rate as Delta, so this problem is not inherently terrible everywhere in the industry. Worth noting that this flight was operated by Republic, not United.
--Citations--
[1] https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-buyers-and-sellers-inherently-di...
[2]http://6331-presscdn-0-25.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/u...
I'm sure they could have avoided this whole situation by offering the first 4 persons of the airplane, a 1000$ CASH. Instead, their policy is to risk incidents like this, for one simple reason: because they can.
This is what happens when you get monopolies. Come on people, I thought we learned from the ISP monopolies already. Whenever you have limited or No choice: like monopolies, no good can come from it. I'm not surprised by this at all. And, I wouldn't be surprised if we see large increases in air fares above inflation, in coming years, as airlines consolidate their monopolistic powers. It won't be too long untill they're competing with Comcast and At&t for worst customer service.
This is what happens when you get monopolies. Come on people, I thought we learned from the ISP monopolies already. Whenever you have limited or No choice: like monopolies, no good can come from it. I'm not surprised by this at all. And, I wouldn't be surprised if we see large increases in air fares above inflation, in coming years, as airlines consolidate their monopolistic powers. It won't be too long untill they're competing with Comcast and At&t for worst customer service.
I don't claim that there aren't better ways to handle the situation, but I also don't see any wrongdoing in how this shook out.