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

[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.

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.

That'll be for the lawyers to discuss.

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.

They goofed royally by not holding up the loading of the passengers, and then not raising the ante for compensation. And honestly, at that point, it may cost a lot less to fly to Louisville on a private charter than to pay the lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Were they even police or rather airport security (wannabee police)?

 

[KeepTalking]

Were they even police or rather airport security (wannabee police)?

IIRC at least one of them was wearing a jacket with POLICE on the back in the video, but the news reports all say that these were security guards. Of course, it is not uncommon for police officers to work security jobs on the side, often with the blessing of their department.

 

[dismal]

And honestly, at that point, it may cost a lot less to fly to Louisville on a private charter than to pay the lawsuit.

I don't disagree they could have handled it better from a PR standpoint, but what lawsuit?

"Bad PR move" not equal "civil tort".

 

[TV and credit cards]

Based on the fact that their revenue is derived from shuttling people to and fro, it would behoove UA not to drag their source of revenue off their airplanes.
I'd start there and structure airline policy around that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The obvious solution is to ban all photography on a commercial flight.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And honestly, at that point, it may cost a lot less to fly to Louisville on a private charter than to pay the lawsuit.

I don't disagree they could have handled it better from a PR standpoint, but what lawsuit?

"Bad PR move" not equal "civil tort".

If he was assaulted that would be a tort. If he was simply ejected, that would just be a breech of contract. Either way, seems he can sue for damages.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't disagree they could have handled it better from a PR standpoint, but what lawsuit?

"Bad PR move" not equal "civil tort".

What country are you living in?

 

[ksen]

And honestly, at that point, it may cost a lot less to fly to Louisville on a private charter than to pay the lawsuit.

I don't disagree they could have handled it better from a PR standpoint, but what lawsuit?

"Bad PR move" not equal "civil tort".

The lawsuit that's on its way.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...ragged-passenger-0412-biz-20170412-story.html

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

That'll be for the lawyers to discuss.

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.

They goofed royally by not holding up the loading of the passengers, and then not raising the ante for compensation. And honestly, at that point, it may cost a lot less to fly to Louisville on a private charter than to pay the lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Were they even police or rather airport security (wannabee police)?

They were real government paid police officers who work for the Chicago Department of Aviation. The CDA has jurisdiction over secure areas of the airport.

 

[dismal]

I don't disagree they could have handled it better from a PR standpoint, but what lawsuit?

"Bad PR move" not equal "civil tort".

If he was assaulted that would be a tort. If he was simply ejected, that would just be a breech of contract. Either way, seems he can sue for damages.

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

I would guess under the law he was a trespasser on their plane.

eta:

Here is the fine print. See section 25 for rules for involuntarily terminated reservations.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

Well if the fine print is anything like a EULA for software or a car rental agreement, it could contain just about anything for nobody ever reads it. But I will be reading that fine print from now on.

 

[Elixir]

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

they could have given one of the passengers $250 million in exchange for their seat and still come out ahead..

I can't even imagine the ticket sales (and PR bump) they'd be enjoying right now if they had increased the offer to $250 thousand!

I will be reading that fine print from now on.

Good idea, as long as you can check in another hour earlier...

 

[dismal]

Good idea, as long as you can check in another hour earlier...

And it's not like you can negotiate out what you don't like.

 

[abaddon]

The airlines can leave a few seats open for contingencies like this. Or use smaller planes for moving their engineers around. Or make better compensatory offers, something significantly larger than the ticket-price. Several times larger.

Ultimately they just need to own their mistake without turning it into a problem for others, whatever the cost to themselves. I own a business and when I find a choice made by anyone other than the customer has created a difficulty, I don't transfer that problem onto the customer.

Rules are never the final say on anything. This human being should not have been treated like a cow to be herded about. All rules that make that legally ok be damned.

Surely any rules a company writes for themselves can't be treated like the last word on anything, or that in itself is something that needs changing.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

The security guards likely assumed that the airline would not call security to have a passenger forcibly removed unless the passenger was some sort of threat or was not a paying passenger. They likely did not fathom it was just because the airline CEO's are greedy scumbags who have no problem assaulting paying passengers in order to save a few bucks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

The security guards likely assumed that the airline would not call security to have a passenger forcibly removed unless the passenger was some sort of threat or was not a paying passenger. They likely did not fathom it was just because the airline CEO's are greedy scumbags who have no problem assaulting paying passengers in order to save a few bucks.

And now one of them is suspended and the rest are being sued, so perhaps that will be motivation for other security guards in the future to ask a question or two before tackling some guy just because some other guy they don't work for told them to.

 

[dismal]

Surely any rules a company writes for themselves can't be treated like the last word on anything, or that in itself is something that needs changing.

The contract for carriage is not something they "wrote for themselves". It's a contract the passenger agreed to as well.

 

[ronburgundy]

If he was assaulted that would be a tort. If he was simply ejected, that would just be a breech of contract. Either way, seems he can sue for damages.

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

I would guess under the law he was a trespasser on their plane.

eta:

Here is the fine print. See section 25 for rules for involuntarily terminated reservations.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

They probably do have fine print somewhere that covers their greedy asses, but section 25 doesn't seem to be it. That is only when the flight is "oversold" which UA has already admitted that it was not. Also, all that section is about being "denied boarding". He wasn't denied boarding. He had already boarded. They need a section that says passengers already granted boarding can be forcibly removed from the plane for reasons other than not having a ticket or being a threat.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Surely any rules a company writes for themselves can't be treated like the last word on anything, or that in itself is something that needs changing.

The contract for carriage is not something they "wrote for themselves". It's a contract the passenger agreed to as well.

It's a contract of adhesion which means it will be adjudicated more harshly against the author.

It will be pretty easy to demonstrate that the airline had a duty of care, a breach of that duty, that harm was caused, and that the proximate cause of the harm was the breach of the duty of care.

Libertarians - this is what you long for, remediation by tort law. It is the epitome of inconsistency to rail against it.

aa

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

I would guess under the law he was a trespasser on their plane.

eta:

Here is the fine print. See section 25 for rules for involuntarily terminated reservations.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

They probably do have fine print somewhere that covers their greedy asses, but section 25 doesn't seem to be it. That is only when the flight is "oversold" which UA has already admitted that it was not. Also, all that section is about being "denied boarding". He wasn't denied boarding. He had already boarded. They need a section that says passengers already granted boarding can be forcibly removed from the plane for reasons other than not having a ticket or being a threat.

Ya, those are for oversold flights, so they don't apply to the situation under discussion. The airline may have meant that this section applies when the flight is oversold or they needed those seats for other reasons, but the passengers agreed to what the contract says, not what the company meant it to say.