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.

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.

If United wins the lawsuit they don't win much in this case. The can't counter sue this guy for the billions that the company lost for this. So they will settle for an undisclosed amount. But this is very much rewarding bad behavior.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

I would agree. but add further that normal practice is for Airline to refuse the overbooking as they go to check in. For super savers/low cost economy (potential standby tickets) the passenger should be aware of this risk. Nonetheless airlines will still offer some kind of compensation, even it it is a tin foil packaged meal for a short delay. However they would also provide hotels meals, and sometime free tickets for the next flights, or an upgrade on the next flight.

Unlike United Airlines these don't drag people off planes in situations like this.

Philippine Airlines, and China Southern which I flew on several times never had problems in resolving issues like this with passengers but this was never after the persons had boarded. Air France was rude but still booked me even when it said it overbooked. My connection in Paris was cancelled however. I found this after check in. After an argument with the stewardess, she snatched a boarding pass off another person she was arguing with because he didn't have his ticket. (At that time we had to show tickets and boarding passes).

 

[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

: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.

The I'm going to sue is an threat people can shout without any repercussions. It's an issue with customer service and a threat the people throw around. That one lady called 911 because she didn't like how McDonalds was handling her chicken nuggets.

 

[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.

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 belief is not a plan. Faulty or unwarranted beliefs are often the reason one has failed to plan properly. Further, I think the passenger in question acted very much like an adult, he stood his ground in the face of a group of thugs who were clearly in the wrong. As an adult, one often recognizes that the failure of another party to plan properly does not constitute an emergency on your part.

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.

There was no emergency, the airline had other options.

The irony of this board is that United was prioritizing their employees over their customers, something people criticize companies when they do the opposite.

Do tell. That is not a position that I have heard articulated by progressives on this board in the past. I don't doubt that posters like you and Loren have gone there before, but I would need to see links and quotes to believe that your average liberal or progressive on this board agrees with that stance.

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.

Oh, you were referring to support for Unions before. Maybe you aren't aware of this, but Unions don't normally concern themselves with the relationship between workers and customers, it is a different relationship they seek to even out.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

I would agree. but add further that normal practice is for Airline to refuse the overbooking as they go to check in. For super savers/low cost economy (potential standby tickets) the passenger should be aware of this risk. Nonetheless airlines will still offer some kind of compensation, even it it is a tin foil packaged meal for a short delay. However they would also provide hotels meals, and sometime free tickets for the next flights, or an upgrade on the next flight.

Unlike United Airlines these don't drag people off planes in situations like this.

Philippine Airlines, and China Southern which I flew on several times never had problems in resolving issues like this with passengers but this was never after the persons had boarded. Air France was rude but still booked me even when it said it overbooked. My connection in Paris was cancelled however. I found this after check in. After an argument with the stewardess, she snatched a boarding pass off another person she was arguing with because he didn't have his ticket. (At that time we had to show tickets and boarding passes).

But the normal question question of a rational adult would be, especaially a doctor who has scheduling issues in their own profession, "When can you get me to destination" As people pointed out there was several flights the doctor could have taken to get there by 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.

The I'm going to sue is an threat people can shout without any repercussions. It's an issue with customer service and a threat the people throw around. That one lady called 911 because she didn't like how McDonalds was handling her chicken nuggets.

This guy was not shouting. He was calm in stating the facts as he saw them. The fact that he has now filed a lawsuit shows that he was not bluffing, the fact that he was not jailed shows that the rent-a-cops were bluffing. Loren's new video evidence was an epic fail when it comes to supporting his argument.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

But the normal adults at UA also did not move on. They did not act like adults and understand that scheduling conflicts occur and they did not try to work with someone to arrange plans.

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.

UA was prioritizing their needs - the crew was needed in Louisville. Union rules and regulations did not require or force UA to make mistake after mistake.


The real irony of this board is the number of free-marketers and libertarians who applaud the use of force and non-voluntary means to achieve a goal instead of voluntary exchanges. UA is going to learn that if they had offered a couple of hundred (or even a couple of thousand) more to get four people off that plane, they would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[starwater]

Just because UA were following the *rules* doesn't mean they can treat passengers with such disdain.

1 They could have continued to increase the incentive
2 Put the remaining crew member on a greyhound bus for the 5.5 hour ride
3 Paid for a ticket on another airline for the passenger
4 Put the remaining crew member on another airline
5 Rented a car for the crew members
6 put the crew member in a dog crate and put him in the cargo bay.

 

[Malintent]

I just learned that the so-called police that dragged him off the plane were imposters. They were airport security wearing jackets that had the word "police" printed on them. It is said that they were instructed to not wear those jackets months prior.

If I was on that plane, knew that those individuals were not cops, but impersonating cops, I would have arrested them, rendered them unconscious if necessary to do so, called 911, and have them arrested for assault.

A TSA agent wanted to touch me after I passed through the scanner. I told him he could, but made it exceedingly clear that if he touched my penis I could not be held responsible for the involuntary reflex that might occur, and possibly cause him inadvertent permanent physical damage. "just be very careful, we don't want you getting hurt or arrested for sexual assault". He said he just wanted to check my hair. fine. I was a little disappointed... I really wanted to kick his teeth out "accidently".

 

[Artemus]

But the normal question question of a rational adult would be, especaially a doctor who has scheduling issues in their own profession, "When can you get me to destination" As people pointed out there was several flights the doctor could have taken to get there by the next day.

He DID ask that question. He was told it would be a 2 PM departure the next day. That was not acceptable. He did the right thing by refusing to accept their offer.

 

[Artemus]

I just learned that the so-called police that dragged him off the plane were imposters. They were airport security wearing jackets that had the word "police" printed on them. It is said that they were instructed to not wear those jackets months prior.

Here is an article on the authority the Chicago Aviation Police have. I've heard a group of federal marshals I was stranded with after 9/11 refer (rather disparagingly) to similarly employed persons as "port cops".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the normal question question of a rational adult would be, especaially a doctor who has scheduling issues in their own profession, "When can you get me to destination" As people pointed out there was several flights the doctor could have taken to get there by the next day.

He DID ask that question. He was told it would be a 2 PM departure the next day. That was not acceptable. He did the right thing by refusing to accept their offer.

Couldn't they just bump someone else on an earlier flight that day?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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 Contract of Carriage has a "definitions" section and they don't define "board", therefore we are left to the use the ordinary meaning of the word. If you're sitting in your seat ready to go, you have boarded.

 

[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.

But the normal adults at UA also did not move on. They did not act like adults and understand that scheduling conflicts occur and they did not try to work with someone to arrange plans.

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.

UA was prioritizing their needs - the crew was needed in Louisville. Union rules and regulations did not require or force UA to make mistake after mistake.


The real irony of this board is the number of free-marketers and libertarians who applaud the use of force and non-voluntary means to achieve a goal instead of voluntary exchanges. UA is going to learn that if they had offered a couple of hundred (or even a couple of thousand) more to get four people off that plane, they would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Of course they were prioritizing their flight crews, they are required by FAA regulations to have certain hours of rest prior to their flights. They needed to be in the destination by a certain time and be guaranteed to get their. Making sure your employees are on your flights first are a better way to guarantee your employees get where they are going.

But a business can make it's rules and comply with regulations. It doesn't have to give out a free flight to someone because they got bumped when being bumped is a condition a customer agrees to when they purchase a ticket. If the Dr had been at the counter when they said, "We have to bump you it would not have been any different"

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

He can't be punished for not following an unlawful order. That's how you get out of the catch 22.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course they were prioritizing their flight crews, they are required by FAA regulations to have certain hours of rest prior to their flights. They needed to be in the destination by a certain time and be guaranteed to get their. Making sure your employees are on your flights first are a better way to guarantee your employees get where they are going.

But a business can make it's rules and comply with regulations. It doesn't have to give out a free flight to someone because they got bumped when being bumped is a condition a customer agrees to when they purchase a ticket.

The ticket says they can get bumped. The regulations say if there is a time delay in getting the passenger to the destination, they must comp the ticket holder. That isn't a United Airlines thing, it is the rule of law.

If the Dr had been at the counter when they said, "We have to bump you it would not have been any different"

If that happened at check-in, things would have been much better.

 

[Artemus]

If the Dr had been at the counter when they said, "We have to bump you it would not have been any different"

Then you really need to explain this to the multiple aviation-law attorneys and law professors who have said on record that it would have been very different had he been at the counter. They apparently know less about the law than you do.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

If you read the rest of my post and my other posts, you'll see that I agree with you. Rule 21 very specifically states the reasons why someone might be refused transport. Needing that person's seat for their employees is not one of them. It's not even clear that Rule 25 would have applied had they done it before boarding because Rule 25 specifically states it is for "oversold" flights. This wasn't the case. Rule 5 covers cancellations of reservations, but that doesn't include needing the seat for their employees either. It's not clear to me what legal standing they would have had in any situation to bump passengers for their employees. Maybe there are some FAA Rules in play.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The ticket says they can get bumped. The regulations say if there is a time delay in getting the passenger to the destination, they must comp the ticket holder. That isn't a United Airlines thing, it is the rule of law.

If the Dr had been at the counter when they said, "We have to bump you it would not have been any different"

If that happened at check-in, things would have been much better.

But as the courtesy of getting the flight out on time, accomadting other customers and allowing flight crews a chance to get to their next flight assignment they started the boarding process so they could leave on time instead of being delayed. he would have been comped for his involuntary bumping.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

But the normal adults at UA also did not move on. They did not act like adults and understand that scheduling conflicts occur and they did not try to work with someone to arrange plans.

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.

UA was prioritizing their needs - the crew was needed in Louisville. Union rules and regulations did not require or force UA to make mistake after mistake.


The real irony of this board is the number of free-marketers and libertarians who applaud the use of force and non-voluntary means to achieve a goal instead of voluntary exchanges. UA is going to learn that if they had offered a couple of hundred (or even a couple of thousand) more to get four people off that plane, they would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Of course they were prioritizing their flight crews, they are required by FAA regulations to have certain hours of rest prior to their flights. They needed to be in the destination by a certain time and be guaranteed to get their. Making sure your employees are on your flights first are a better way to guarantee your employees get where they are going.

But a business can make it's rules and comply with regulations. It doesn't have to give out a free flight to someone because they got bumped when being bumped is a condition a customer agrees to when they purchase a ticket. If the Dr had been at the counter when they said, "We have to bump you it would not have been any different"

It is different because once they have boarded the airline has already accepted them for the flight. They do have rules and regulations giving priority but if UA did what I see other airlines doing, it means that it would give compensation to people who change. Perhaps a hotel for the night, a rescheduled ticket and a free return ticket. This happens as the passengers are queuing for check in and not once they have boarded.at

However it seems that UA did offer either $US800.00 or $US1,000.00.

https://hbr.org/2017/04/airlines-li...umped-passengers-because-of-a-government-rule