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

[coloradoatheist]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

I guess we'll just see what happens with this lawsuit. I'm betting on a settlement, but for the purposes of this thread, that's just as good as a favorable deliberation.

I think that United will settle. It's easy for us to say that United to defend their lawsuit and counter sue on principle but it won't do any good for them.

 

[laughing dog]

wrong wrong

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off,

their problem, not his

he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

wrong

Chanting "wrong" doesn't make you not wrong.

No, but it makes you wrong in this case.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Yep, this is what they should have done. You nailed it.

 

[DBT]

The man paid for his seat. The seat was his for the duration of the flight. The airline has no right to evict a customer who has paid for a seat, is occupying that seat in the expectation of completing his flight.

They actually do have rights to evict a customer, and those are delineated in Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage..

I know that airlines have a right to evict customers, but the issue here is, on what grounds. Just the fact that they now want a seat that a customer has paid for and is now occupying is not a good reason to evict customers. If nothing else, it is not sound business practice. Genuinely unruly, drunk or violent passengers is a different kettle of fish....and not something I was referring to.

 

[bilby]

Their mistake was in setting an arbitrary (and in this case clearly too low) ceiling for this compensation.

Only a person with no business sense (and a mindlessly authoritarian attitude that treats adults with a genuine grievance as though they were stubborn children) thinks that the bad press from having a passenger forcibly removed from the aircraft will cost less than the lowest bid for compensation that is acceptable to at least one passenger.

Minor point: It's not arbitrary. In general they offer up to what they would have to pay out for an involuntary denied boarding.

Some airlines empower their people to go higher, this one (note: It's not United. This was a regional airline codeshare flight) almost certainly didn't.

And clearly that was a massive error on their part, for which they are wholly responsible.

This 'divide and conquer' technique is popular with corporations, but it's still bullshit:

The corporation isn't to blame, because it was the gate agent who made the decisions.

The gate agent isn't to blame, because his decisions were constrained by the policy set by the corporation.

Therefore nobody can be accused of any wrongdoing, except the passenger.

It's such a flimsy non-logic that a five year old could see through it. And yet it seems to persuade you.

The situation could have been handled far better. If the corporation set a policy that prevented this, then they are at fault. If their agent acted against policy, and that prevented this, then they are still at fault. Responsibility flows uphill, EVEN IF authority fails to flow downhill. That's allegedly why those at the top are worth the big bucks.

 

[bilby]

You mean such as an airline publically using force to remove a passenger from a plane, thereby incurring a massive backlash from consumers and a likely enormous legal bill that will ultimately lead to higher ticket prices for those consumers?

That kind of thing? For example?

Why should they realize they were going to run into a DYKWIA asshole? Involuntary bumps happen 60,000 times a year, this is the first time we've heard of someone having a meltdown when they get bumped.

It would appear that you are discussing a different incident than the one everyone else here is talking about.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Shit happens! 4 "volunteers" are chosen, one goes bonkers.

Why should they realize they were going to run into a DYKWIA asshole? Involuntary bumps happen 60,000 times a year, this is the first time we've heard of someone having a meltdown when they get bumped.

It would appear that you are discussing a different incident than the one everyone else here is talking about.

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens. Should those 3 have also made a fuss? What good did this character accomplish by going ballistic? What did he know that the other 3 did not?

Whatever went wrong in the procedures (assuming the company made a mistake somewhere), it will be corrected, and it would have been corrected anyway without this guy causing such a commotion. Some reasonable change in procedure would have been the result, if all 4 passengers had complied, instead of only 3.

But after the commotion and circus atmosphere of this, the company now might overreact and make extreme changes which will end up being unnecessarily costly.

The bad behavior by this guy and the sideshow will end up costing passengers higher prices in the future.

 

[Arctish]

It would appear that you are discussing a different incident than the one everyone else here is talking about.

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming

That's not what happened on the United flight under discussion. If you're referring to some other incident you'll have to provide a link so we'll know what you're talking about.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It would appear that you are discussing a different incident than the one everyone else here is talking about.

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens. Should those 3 have also made a fuss? What good did this character accomplish by going ballistic? What did he know that the other 3 did not?

Whatever went wrong in the procedures (assuming the company made a mistake somewhere), it will be corrected, and it would have been corrected anyway without this guy causing such a commotion. Some reasonable change in procedure would have been the result, if all 4 passengers had complied, instead of only 3.

But after the commotion and circus atmosphere of this, the company now might overreact and make extreme changes which will end up being unnecessarily costly.

The bad behavior by this guy and the sideshow will end up costing passengers higher prices in the future.

The airline messed up and overbooked. As others and myself said, UA could have offered incentives for people to reschedule their flights as other airlines do. I've quoted one example earlier (Philippine Airlines). If a plane is overbooked then refusal takes place at the check-in counter, not after UA accepted him as a passenger.

UA wouldn't have to put its fares up but simply increase its efficiency. If it put its fares up it couldn't compete with other airlines. Certainly on treatment of passengers it doesn't seem to be competitive. Capitalists cannot thrive without consumers. If consumers turn away from them, the Capitalist loses his shares or his business.

If UA was a capitalist monopoly and not regulated by law, then it could do what it wanted. However it cannot and may face a lawsuit for assault forcible removal of a passenger. Airlines have a right to refuse people providing the compensation is agreed between the parties on the plane. This will frequently mean a free ticket and a free hotel and meals for the night.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens. Should those 3 have also made a fuss? What good did this character accomplish by going ballistic? What did he know that the other 3 did not? ....

For someone who claims to be looking out for the consumers, this guy was a consumer. He had paid for a seat and boarded the plane. He did not want to voluntarily give up his seat for his reasons - the others were willing to give up their seat. UA could have simply offered more compensation for someone to give up that final seat until someone accepted the offer. That would have been simpler and attentive to the needs of their immediate consumers (i.e. passengers).

All of this occurred because UA screwed up. Apparently, someone could not literally count correctly, since UA let 4 people on boards for whom they did not have seats. That is not the fault of any passenger.

If UA has even a modicum of intelligence, the revamped procedures will include the following - DO NOT LET ON MORE PASSENGERS THAN THERE ARE SEATS. I cannot imagine that would raise costs at all, unless it means hiring boarding agents who passed 2nd grade. There is no reason to expect prices on UA to rise much because of this. Not only will costs not increase, but on the routes where there is competition, the prices of other airlines will keep UA's prices down.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens.

Responsible Citizens? Responsible to who?

 

[untermensche]

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens.

Responsible Citizens? Responsible to who?

A responsible citizen is one that gets pushed around by arbitrary power easily.

 

[Artemus]

It's the incident where the guy was dragged out kicking and screaming, while 3 others who had to exit did so voluntarily like responsible citizens. Should those 3 have also made a fuss? What good did this character accomplish by going ballistic? What did he know that the other 3 did not?

The good that came out of it is that airlines now have been forced to acknowledge that they have been getting away with violating both their own Contract of Carriage agreements and US law when removing already seated passengers, and the US flying public now knows it too. There is no ambiguity, as been pointed out be numerous legal experts. (The passenger in question already understood that, it would seem.)

This is not unlike the implementation of tarmac-delay laws. Airlines would keep people sitting for hours and hours and tell the passengers that they were essentially prisoners. The final straw was when a man demand that an ill, elderly woman be let off. The flight attendant threatened to call the police and have him arrested. He said "I think that is an excellent idea." The tarmac-delay laws were implemented shortly after that (about 2010). The airlines of course whined that they would be destroyed this horrible cost to them, but somehow they still exist.

I expect to see a similar dramatic change in the behavior of all airlines now, and I expect them to survive the change just fine. Amusingly, they can't even beg Congress not to change the laws this time because the laws already exist. The public just realizes that now and they will be enforced.

 

[Malintent]

So, you're saying the passenger hasn't been allowed to board until the entire boarding process has been completed? Like Schrödinger's passenger, the guy in his assigned seat, with his luggage stowed and his seatbelt on is still in a state of boarding until the flight attendant announces that he's boarded?

So, if I show a picture of a row of three people, in their airplane seats, only an idiot would say 'they've boarded,' a reasonable person would say 'I don't know, what is the state of the door?

Well, to be fair legally it might be that way, I don't know. Legal definitions are necessarily coherent with "what reasonable people would agree on."

The passenger's state at the time of the incident was "boarded". The passenger was part of the enplanement at that moment so "denied boarding" is not on the table. That was an ejection of a passenger, which is only covered under the law if the passenger was creating a safety concern. a safety concern can be very subjective and minor... as minor as "acting belligerent" or "failing to follow a flight attendant's instructions". If the instruction was "get off the plane", then I don't know how that works, with respect to the law, actually. Kind of a catch 22.

 

[Malintent]

This would raise ticket prices by something like 20% and still wouldn't avoid all the problems.

Seats sometimes break. (It's happened to me, nothing to do about it at the time but unless a mechanic could fix it quickly the next flight was going out with that seat empty as it didn't meet the safety rules.)

Air marshals sometimes displace passengers.

Sometimes a plane has to go out with empty seats for weight and balance reasons.

Sometimes the whole plane doesn't go out.

- - - Updated - - -

No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned.

That is pretty much the exact definition of a planning problem: the planning did not plan for the problem encountered.

They did plan for the situation--fly the crew out on their airplanes.

This only became a big issue because the guy was a moron and there are a lot of people who don't know how the system works.

You have no idea what you are talking about. you are pulling random numbers out of your ass here.

there is already a price point for "first come first served" seating. it's called flying standby. That is how they profit even more on the refundable seats, and double their take on the non-refundable ones.

What is the net profit of UA last year? do you even know? If regulating the airlines such that they are forced to provide services that they accept payment for reduces their profit by (random number you used) 20%, why is that bad.

If McDonalds was found to be packing their burgers with asbestos powder to keep costs down for them, and then they were told that they can't poison people to increase their profits, would you complain that the cost of your burger would go up 20% or would you be very happy for McDonalds to loose that 20% they fraudulently gained in the first place?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This would raise ticket prices by something like 20% and still wouldn't avoid all the problems.

Seats sometimes break. (It's happened to me, nothing to do about it at the time but unless a mechanic could fix it quickly the next flight was going out with that seat empty as it didn't meet the safety rules.)

Air marshals sometimes displace passengers.

Sometimes a plane has to go out with empty seats for weight and balance reasons.

Sometimes the whole plane doesn't go out.

- - - Updated - - -

No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned.

That is pretty much the exact definition of a planning problem: the planning did not plan for the problem encountered.

They did plan for the situation--fly the crew out on their airplanes.

This only became a big issue because the guy was a moron and there are a lot of people who don't know how the system works.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes he does. He has anecdotal evidence, which is the best type of evidence. Everything else is damned. We must submit to his findings.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should they realize they were going to run into a DYKWIA asshole? Involuntary bumps happen 60,000 times a year, this is the first time we've heard of someone having a meltdown when they get bumped.

It would appear that you are discussing a different incident than the one everyone else here is talking about.

Yeah, this guy got quite the "bump". Broken nose and a concussion.

 

[Malintent]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

I guess we'll just see what happens with this lawsuit. I'm betting on a settlement, but for the purposes of this thread, that's just as good as a favorable deliberation.

I think that United will settle. It's easy for us to say that United to defend their lawsuit and counter sue on principle but it won't do any good for them.

You better believe they will aggressively try to settle. This is hugely bad for them. Expect to see this go to jury and expect a punitive damages award severe enough for all airlines to restructure their procedures for survival.

You think you can find a jury that doesn't have a single person on it that has been unfairly treated in an airport anywhere, ever?

The punitive damages will be the net sales (not profit) of UA and UA holdings on all routes, globally, for one day. In 2016 that was 2.3 BILLION dollars for the year. So one day would be over 6 million.

This guy is getting over 10 million in combined awards.... without a doubt in my mind.

Before I did the math I estimated closer to 100 million in punitive, to ensure the industry is HIGHLY motivated to change. Now that I did the math, I see that would be a bit over the top.. .but still possible.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned.

That is pretty much the exact definition of a planning problem: the planning did not plan for the problem encountered.

They did plan for the situation--fly the crew out on their airplanes.

This only became a big issue because the guy was a moron and there are a lot of people who don't know how the system works.

They did not fully plan for this situation, otherwise they would not currently be facing a lawsuit for roughing up a paying customer who had already boarded the plane, and was not otherwise a threat to the safety of the flight. Failure to fully plan for a situation is known as a planning problem.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned.

That is pretty much the exact definition of a planning problem: the planning did not plan for the problem encountered.

They did plan for the situation--fly the crew out on their airplanes.

This only became a big issue because the guy was a moron and there are a lot of people who don't know how the system works.

They did not fully plan for this situation, otherwise they would not currently be facing a lawsuit for roughing up a paying customer who had already boarded the plane, and was not otherwise a threat to the safety of the flight. Failure to fully plan for a situation is known as a planning problem.

They based their belief that people would act as adults and understand the scheduling conflicts occur and that they could work someone to arrange plans. A doctor himself should have been a person to understand that emergencies arise and alternatives need to happen. It's like being taken back to the evaluation room and being asked there to wait for a few hours. It happens, it sucks, but normal adults move on.


The irony of this board is that United was prioritizing their employees over their customers, something people criticize companies when they do the opposite. It was union rules and government regulations that made it that United had to get those 4 people to the destination so they had enough time to rest before a flight the next day.

 

[KeepTalking]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

:laughing-smiley-014

A guy who clearly knows he is in the wrong does not calmly tell the police rent-a-cops that he will be filing a lawsuit if they persist, and further call their bluff by telling them to go ahead and take him to jail.