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

[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.

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.

Which is not prioritizing their employees, it is prioritizing their profits.

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.

First, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, being bumped refers to what happens before someone boards the plane. Which makes your response moot. Second, UA got 3 people to leave based on an offer of $800 in travel vouchers and a hotel room. It would not have taken tens of thousands of dollars to induce one more person to give up his or her seat. And that would have been a lot less expensive than this fallout and much better customer relations. Third, the very fact that the video went viral and UA is scrambling to minimize the damage to its reputation and bottom line strongly suggests that your position is not shared by a significant portion of UA's customer base or UA. Are you under the impression that you are in a better position to understand UA's business than UA?

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

Of course it would. While there might have been a scene, no one would have had to been dragged off a plane and the plane would have departed on time.

 

[Malintent]

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.

The FAA defines the term "boarding" as the process of loading passengers and cargo.
The FAA defines the state of "enplanement" as being part of the BOARDED crew, passengers, cargo, or supplies

Once a person boards, they are part of the enplanement. a person that is on the plane has the state "boarded", regardless of the state of the plane (being "boarding").

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

And reading the rule, second section says they can if they are required by government regulations. One of the government regulations is that a flight crew must have enough rest prior to getting on a flight. That's why this crew had to be on this plane. It even says on the contract you can be kicked off the aircraft, not just boarding.

But that's why normally this would go to court to make sure, but as I said, United won't win anything by doing it even if they are right.

 

[Artemus]

And reading the rule, second section says they can if they are required by government regulations. One of the government regulations is that a flight crew must have enough rest prior to getting on a flight. That's why this crew had to be on this plane. It even says on the contract you can be kicked off the aircraft, not just boarding.

I have to admit, this is the most creative spin I've seen yet on this thread. (Hint: They weren't crew on the flight, they were non-revenue passengers.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

And reading the rule, second section says they can if they are required by government regulations. One of the government regulations is that a flight crew must have enough rest prior to getting on a flight. That's why this crew had to be on this plane. It even says on the contract you can be kicked off the aircraft, not just boarding.

I have to admit, this is the most creative spin I've seen yet on this thread. (Hint: They weren't crew on the flight, they were non-revenue passengers.)

But the employees when they are flying to get in position for the flights they are assigned to crew they are paid. It is also a requirement by the FAA that these crews have certain amounts of rest prior to their flight. And I am trying to confirm but I've heard that these crews are allowed to do this on a flight up until 10 minutes prior to the doors closing.

Just to be clear for the future, the carriage of Contract needs to be updated until doors are closed.

 

[Artemus]

I have to admit, this is the most creative spin I've seen yet on this thread. (Hint: They weren't crew on the flight, they were non-revenue passengers.)

But the employees when they are flying to get in position for the flights they are assigned to crew they are paid. It is also a requirement by the FAA that these crews have certain amounts of rest prior to their flight.

You are honestly trying to claim that the Rule 22 "well-rested crew" clause applies not just to the crew of the current flight, but also to the crew of a flight scheduled to depart the next day? Really? Please cite a legal precedent that backs up that fantastical interpretation.

And I am trying to confirm but I've heard that these crews are allowed to do this on a flight up until 10 minutes prior to the doors closing.

I'll bet you did. From the same place where everyone "heard" that "boarded" means when the door closes or backs out of the gate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just to be clear for the future, the carriage of Contract needs to be updated until doors are closed.

As a nautical term, you've 'boarded' the ship when there's hull between you and the water, or in the case of drydock, when it's between you and where the water will be at some point in the future. It has nothing to do with whether or not everyone has boarded, or whether the gangplank is still between ship and shore. Or between ship and other ship. You salute the ensign, you salute the POOW, you step down off the brow, and you're boarded. But maybe that's just a jargon term.

At the airport, I believe that when they scan my boarding pass, at the entrance to the jetway, the computer notes that the holder of the boarding pass for 21C has been approved by the clerk, and the computer changes my status to 'boarded.'
I never have to show my boarding pass again unless it's to convince the fat guy that 21C IS my goddamned seat, get out of it (it's never a skinny guy that gets confused, why is that?).

So maybe the carriage of Contract needs to specify 'at least thirteen inches down the jetway?'

 

[coloradoatheist]

Just to be clear for the future, the carriage of Contract needs to be updated until doors are closed.

As a nautical term, you've 'boarded' the ship when there's hull between you and the water, or in the case of drydock, when it's between you and where the water will be at some point in the future. It has nothing to do with whether or not everyone has boarded, or whether the gangplank is still between ship and shore. Or between ship and other ship. You salute the ensign, you salute the POOW, you step down off the brow, and you're boarded. But maybe that's just a jargon term.

At the airport, I believe that when they scan my boarding pass, at the entrance to the jetway, the computer notes that the holder of the boarding pass for 21C has been approved by the clerk, and the computer changes my status to 'boarded.'
I never have to show my boarding pass again unless it's to convince the fat guy that 21C IS my goddamned seat, get out of it (it's never a skinny guy that gets confused, why is that?).

So maybe the carriage of Contract needs to specify 'at least thirteen inches down the jetway?'

I'm not disagreeing with you, but they can update the Carriage of Contract to include that these provisions apply until the door is closed, just so everyone knows.

- - - Updated - - -

But the employees when they are flying to get in position for the flights they are assigned to crew they are paid. It is also a requirement by the FAA that these crews have certain amounts of rest prior to their flight.

You are honestly trying to claim that the Rule 22 "well-rested crew" clause applies not just to the crew of the current flight, but also to the crew of a flight scheduled to depart the next day? Really? Please cite a legal precedent that backs up that fantastical interpretation.

And I am trying to confirm but I've heard that these crews are allowed to do this on a flight up until 10 minutes prior to the doors closing.

I'll bet you did. From the same place where everyone "heard" that "boarded" means when the door closes or backs out of the gate.

Yes. United was trying to comply with government regulations so that a future flight wouldn't be cancelled and backup the system the next day.

 

[RavenSky]

Responsible Citizens? Responsible to who?

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

That does appear to be the working definition being used by our resident authoritarians.

 

[Artemus]

Here yet another law professor debunking all the pro-United claims being made. It is unanimous agreement by those who actually know what they are talking about.

 

[RavenSky]

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 ones who failed to "act as adults" here were the representatives of United Airlines. They zeroed in on this one man - who had very legitimate competing interests - and decided to force him to comply with their demands. That was the opposite of adult behavior and appropriate conflict resolution on the part of United's personnel

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.

Your strawman just goes to show how very little you actually understand of what you read here

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Yes, because doctors never need to rest before seeing patients

 

[RavenSky]

And reading the rule, second section says they can if they are required by government regulations. One of the government regulations is that a flight crew must have enough rest prior to getting on a flight. That's why this crew had to be on this plane. It even says on the contract you can be kicked off the aircraft, not just boarding.

I have to admit, this is the most creative spin I've seen yet on this thread. (Hint: They weren't crew on the flight, they were non-revenue passengers.)

Nor were they party to the 'carriage contract' between United Airlines and Dr. Dao

 

[RavenSky]

The thing I keep thinking about, but have not seen mentioned anywhere, is how the 4 commuting flight crew must have felt. I can't imagine how uncomfortable it must have been to sit in Dr. Dao's seat after that.

I also wonder if they got their proper 10 hour rest period after the behavior of the ground crew caused this flight to be hours delayed.

 

[beero1000]

The moral of the story is that corporations are people and we must defend their rights to abuse their customers. It's the right thing to do.

 

[Ford]

The moral of the story is that corporations are people and we must defend their rights to abuse their customers. It's the right thing to do.

Well you know the old saying...the corporation is always right.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

And reading the rule, second section says they can if they are required by government regulations. One of the government regulations is that a flight crew must have enough rest prior to getting on a flight. That's why this crew had to be on this plane. It even says on the contract you can be kicked off the aircraft, not just boarding.

I'm sure you could pay a lawyer to argue that in court, but I think it's a losing argument.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Yes, because doctors never need to rest before seeing patients

Are they required by law to have at least 10 hours rest prior to working? Nobody else on the plane said, "I'll go since he is a doctor"

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, because doctors never need to rest before seeing patients

Are they required by law to have at least 10 hours rest prior to working? Nobody else on the plane said, "I'll go since he is a doctor"

Pilots are not required "by law" to get their rest at the expense of someone else's job. Moreover, no one else on the plane said "I'll go because he's a pilot" either. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, no one has even supported the claim that we are discussing 4 pilots if the first place. "Crew" refers to flight attendants, ground crew, and others that don't even have the same rest requirements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's almost certain that this involved something that went wrong at the last minute. Otherwise they would have done as you said (other than it's at the gate, not the counter. You'll be allowed to check in for an overbooked flight because there's a good chance you'll end up flying it anyway.)

And passengers do get kicked off even after boarding although that's much rarer than at the gate but it does happen. This case was only unique in his response, not the problem.

UA wouldn't have to put its fares up but simply increase its efficiency.

Standard leftist bullshit.

If they could increase efficiency they would do so whether or not costs increased. This is yet another variation on the leftist hydra of the infinite pool of profits.