Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

If UA had given in to him, then what about the other 3 passengers who did comply? They too would have stayed on the plane, and the result would have been that the 4 crew members could not get to their destination, and so hundreds of passengers waiting elsewhere would have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. Probably a few doctors in that number who needed to get back to their job.

OR -- if UA gave in to only this one passenger who made a fuss, then the moral of the story is: No matter what, you can always get around the rules if you make a fuss -- just make a bigger fuss than the other guy.

Aren't there already procedures in place to prevent what happened (99.99% of the time)? But this one case, out of a few million, is the fluke which was inevitably going to happen.

Any alternative would mean HIGHER TICKET PRICES = lower standard of living for all.

The benefit of allowing for this odd case to happen, once every 5 or 10 years in a fluke situation out of millions, is lower ticket prices.

The public, or the passengers generally, are the ones who benefit from the rules being as they are and allowing this to happen somewhere once every few years.

I.e., the benefit is lower ticket prices.


WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

 

[Ford]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

I don't know if you've bought airline tickets recently, but you generally have to plan your trip weeks or months out, constantly checking ticket prices to find the best fare.

United apparently had a last minute planning problem, not the doctor.

What could United have done differently? It is worth noting that Chicago is a hub for United. O'Hare is a major airport. If the airline needed to get their crew to Louisville they had many options including putting the crew on another United flight, putting them on another airline's flight, putting them in a taxi to catch a flight out of Midway, or if all else fails put them in a rental car for the 4 1/2 hour drive from Chicago to Louisville.

The airline created this situation through their own lack of planning. They know (or should know) how many passengers they've booked, how many seats are available, and perhaps most importantly they should have not just one plan for transporting their employees to and fro, but a contingency in case that plan falls through.

As the old saying goes "a failure of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

 

[TSwizzle]

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

Since there were no volunteers, the plane should have departed with the passengers on board.

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

I don't know what the existing rules are exactly. But beating a passengers senseless before dragging him off the plane seems a tad excessive.

 

[untermensche]

Simple rule.

Once you are seated you are on the plane.

Airlines have small jets to fly their executives around in.

In this case they use one of them to fly the crew members.

And the cost is deducted from executive pay and perks who should absorb such costs.

 

[laughing dog]

United Airlines could have continued to increase the offer to leave the plane until someone agreed to voluntarily leave the plane.

For the future, UA could offer bumping insurance to ticket purchasers and/or sell no bumping tickets.

 

[rousseau]

Longer work-around to the problem:

Nuke human beings off the face of the earth, and create evolutionary conditions that give rise to a more intelligent species that doesn't do stupid shit like this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

Generally the whole point of buying a ticket in advance is so that we can plan our travel schedules. The airline sells the ticket and says 'flying at 1430' not 'give or take a day.'
it's one thing if mechanical failure prevents the plane from leaving the terminal, but another if the airline just feels that priority goes to people who are in frequent travel programs, checked in earliest, bought the ticket farthest in advance AND their crews, and you just don't deserve to fly today.

If UA had given in to him, then

Then they would have saved a LOT of money in the coming lawsuit, and the PR problem they currently enjoy.

 

[LordKiran]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

I don't know if you've bought airline tickets recently, but you generally have to plan your trip weeks or months out, constantly checking ticket prices to find the best fare.

United apparently had a last minute planning problem, not the doctor.

What could United have done differently? It is worth noting that Chicago is a hub for United. O'Hare is a major airport. If the airline needed to get their crew to Louisville they had many options including putting the crew on another United flight, putting them on another airline's flight, putting them in a taxi to catch a flight out of Midway, or if all else fails put them in a rental car for the 4 1/2 hour drive from Chicago to Louisville.

The airline created this situation through their own lack of planning. They know (or should know) how many passengers they've booked, how many seats are available, and perhaps most importantly they should have not just one plan for transporting their employees to and fro, but a contingency in case that plan falls through.

As the old saying goes "a failure of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

What kills it for me is that surely any impending lawsuits and bad press will cost the company more than if they had just sucked it up and chosen ANY OTHER OPTION.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

United Airlines could have continued to increase the offer to leave the plane until someone agreed to voluntarily leave the plane.

Ya, they were well under what they were able to offer and that maximum amount is actually just an arbitrary figure which they could ignore and go above anyways. For instance, they could have given one of the passengers $250 million in exchange for their seat and still come out ahead, considering the drop in their stock price. They could have had one of the crew hang out in the flight attendants area or rearrange schedules at the airport they were going to and have one of this crew fly out the next day.

They were at the beginning of their list of possible other options to use, not at the end of it.

 

[ksen]

not really surprised lumpen is on board with beating down the occasional asian if it means saving himself a couple bucks or so.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville, but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

 

[KeepTalking]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

If UA had given in to him, then what about the other 3 passengers who did comply? They too would have stayed on the plane, and the result would have been that the 4 crew members could not get to their destination, and so hundreds of passengers waiting elsewhere would have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. Probably a few doctors in that number who needed to get back to their job.

OR -- if UA gave in to only this one passenger who made a fuss, then the moral of the story is: No matter what, you can always get around the rules if you make a fuss -- just make a bigger fuss than the other guy.

Aren't there already procedures in place to prevent what happened (99.99% of the time)? But this one case, out of a few million, is the fluke which was inevitably going to happen.

Any alternative would mean HIGHER TICKET PRICES = lower standard of living for all.

The benefit of allowing for this odd case to happen, once every 5 or 10 years in a fluke situation out of millions, is lower ticket prices.

The public, or the passengers generally, are the ones who benefit from the rules being as they are and allowing this to happen somewhere once every few years.

I.e., the benefit is lower ticket prices.


WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

They should have taken care of the issue before boarding the passengers. It is much easier to deny boarding than it is to remove someone who has already boarded the plane. They had several options available on how to handle the situation, they chose the worst option at the worst time.

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

The rules should be changed to disallow security guards from removing passengers from planes unless the passenger is already a threat to the safety of the plane and/or passengers.

 

[KeepTalking]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

They did so at the behest of the airline, and we have no idea if airport security knew why the passenger was being removed from the flight.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

They did so at the behest of the airline, and we have no idea if airport security knew why the passenger was being removed from the flight.

If they didn't, that's a whole other problem. If the security guards are dragging people off of planes without knowing exactly why they're doing so, then those are some really bad security guards.

 

[rousseau]

Regardless of the legal aspects of it, this was an organisational fail. United has shown it has a culture that stands their ground on their own rights, at the expense of their brand. That isn't wise. It doesn't matter who was in the right, you don't forcefully drag someone off of your plane when there are 100 cameras watching, because the public at large is not going to sympathise with you.

This starts at the top of the organisation, and trickles down through the entire company. Critical thinking and customer service are clearly not a part of their business plan or core values, and now they've gotten fucked.

 

[Bronzeage]

This incident reminds me of something I saw many years ago on a Sunday morning politics discussion show. A General was asked, "What can the military do to help in this situtation?"

"We can destroy things and kill people," he answered. The host was kind of taken back.

"How would that help?"

The General answers, "I don't know that it will, but that's what the military does. If you don't want stuff destroyed and people killed, find some other way to solve the problem."

United employees gave control of the situation to the police. United is taking the heat for this guy getting dragged out of the plane, but their real mistake was calling it over to the police to solve a customer relations problem.

 

[Artemus]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville, but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

It is not so clear-cut that he didn't have the right to stay. But no matter how the precise legal case falls, United screwed up their own scheduling and then tried to force a paying customer to be badly inconvenienced by it against his will. Entirely inexcusable.

Another link on the passenger's rights.

 

[J842P]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

If UA had given in to him, then what about the other 3 passengers who did comply? They too would have stayed on the plane, and the result would have been that the 4 crew members could not get to their destination, and so hundreds of passengers waiting elsewhere would have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. Probably a few doctors in that number who needed to get back to their job.

OR -- if UA gave in to only this one passenger who made a fuss, then the moral of the story is: No matter what, you can always get around the rules if you make a fuss -- just make a bigger fuss than the other guy.

Aren't there already procedures in place to prevent what happened (99.99% of the time)? But this one case, out of a few million, is the fluke which was inevitably going to happen.

Any alternative would mean HIGHER TICKET PRICES = lower standard of living for all.

The benefit of allowing for this odd case to happen, once every 5 or 10 years in a fluke situation out of millions, is lower ticket prices.

The public, or the passengers generally, are the ones who benefit from the rules being as they are and allowing this to happen somewhere once every few years.

I.e., the benefit is lower ticket prices.


WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

It seems to me they could have kept offering more money. They were up to 1000, and I'm sure a little higher and people would have started biting. Or, they could have saved a lot of money by renting a car an driving the crew. Certainly cheaper than the millions they are losing over the negative PR.

 

[KeepTalking]

They did so at the behest of the airline, and we have no idea if airport security knew why the passenger was being removed from the flight.

If they didn't, that's a whole other problem. If the security guards are dragging people off of planes without knowing exactly why they're doing so, then those are some really bad security guards.

Security guards are there to handle problems for the airport and airlines, not to question the airlines when they report a problem that needs handling. United likely just called security and said "We need you to remove a passenger from our flight", and the response from security was likely "What seat are they sitting in?" Done deal.

 

[LordKiran]

My question is if this was a decision made by a higher up or some local low-level manager? If the latter, why does United let low-level staff make decisions outside their pay bracket?