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

[Loren Pechtel]

Except these situations are not rare and they happen every day. 40,000 people in 2016 were involuntarily bumped, that's over 100 a day. How is something that happens 100 times a day rare? What's rare it's a person saying no.

Most are before boarding. Bumps after passengers are on board are rare but not nonexistent.

 

[RavenSky]

Yet another answer that ignores crew rest rules.

Yet another post from Loren that is wrong wrong wrong and more wrong

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The airlines will have to make a decision earlier resulting in more missed flights.

That makes no sense whatsover. If there x people being bumped, then x people miss their flights regardless of the timing of the decision.

No. Pushing the decision earlier means more flights get cancelled.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, in the end result. They physically and violently dragged this man off an airplane that they had already boarded him on. That is materially different from "bumping" him prior to boarding.

It was different because he chose it to be. If at the gate and he was denied and he started making a scene about not being to board could have resulted in security showing up too and asking him to leave.

Yeah. The retard ran into the plane despite security. Deny him at the gate and the same thing might have happened.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it is normal procedure--just a rare enough situation that most people aren't aware of it.

It is absolutely NOT "normal procedure" to take people OFF an airplane after they have been properly boarded. If you think it is, produce factual evidence with links to your sources.

As I said, I'm aware of another case where the airline most certainly didn't have a choice. It didn't make news as something wrong. That says it's normal, just rare.

 

[bilby]

You're making the assumption there was a decision involved.

That's not an assumption.

And I find it terrifying that you are able to think that it is somehow possible that no decision was involved, and yet appear almost indestinguishable from a real human being.

 

[starwater]

I was taken off a plane once after boarding. It was a long time ago when I flew a lot. I can't remember exactly, but I was flying standby, the plane boarded, there were empty seats, I got on in the last seat. Just before takeoff the gal manning the desk at the gate came on board and told me I had to get off for a crew member. I don't remember which airline. but I was seated and buckled in. I got off the plane -

 

[Artemus]

Nevermind.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You're making the assumption there was a decision involved.

Reality: They offered compensation, they still need seats, they work their way up the roster booting passengers until they have the seats they need. Predefined procedures, not decisions.

It's not a predefined procedure.

 

[laughing dog]

That makes no sense unless you are claiming that airlines will engage in more over-booking and/or less compensation.

No. By boarding the plane and allowing the extra 20 minutes to get voluntary bumpers it allows for more voluntary bumping instead of involuntary bumping. If they make the decision decision earlier to bump people involuntarily because they can't board, more people will be involuntarily bumped.

That makes no sense. The target of seats to reallocate is constant.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Pushing the decision earlier means more flights get cancelled.

You need to explain why.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't see how the standard of living for Americans goes down just because the airline has to decide who gets a seat on the plane before they start boarding.

While I agree the standard of living doesn't go down, there's no reason to say it has to be decided before they board.

Consider another case that I have encountered due to this discussion. It was a FAM that was put on at the last minute.

Choices: Boot a passenger or cancel the flight (thus booting everyone.)

What is the right choice?

Offer enough compensation for someone to voluntarily give up a seat. Duh.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're making the assumption there was a decision involved.

Reality: They offered compensation, they still need seats, they work their way up the roster booting passengers until they have the seats they need. Predefined procedures, not decisions.

It's not a predefined procedure.

It is a predefined procedure, one that's done 40,000 times in 2016. And it's done when people are on the plane but just just more rare for those occasions.

I am still trying to track down the next flight information. But the crew that was supposed to be on the flight couldn't crew that flight because they had gone over their hours because of east coast weather delays. They could not drive the hours because union rules prevent it and they could not charter a flight because they don't have the authority. So the only options they had that night, was find a Louisville flight crew, offer more money or follow the ordinary operating airline procedures they did follow. The biggest mistake was the Republic Airlines pilot not coming out of the cockpit and telling him to leave.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they'd followed ordinary operating airline procedures, they'd have offered more money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're making the assumption there was a decision involved.

That's not an assumption.

And I find it terrifying that you are able to think that it is somehow possible that no decision was involved, and yet appear almost indestinguishable from a real human being.

I am distinguishing following the rules vs making a decision.

- - - Updated - - -

I was taken off a plane once after boarding. It was a long time ago when I flew a lot. I can't remember exactly, but I was flying standby, the plane boarded, there were empty seats, I got on in the last seat. Just before takeoff the gal manning the desk at the gate came on board and told me I had to get off for a crew member. I don't remember which airline. but I was seated and buckled in. I got off the plane -

Exactly. Just because most of the people on here don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[bilby]

That's not an assumption.

And I find it terrifying that you are able to think that it is somehow possible that no decision was involved, and yet appear almost indestinguishable from a real human being.

I am distinguishing following the rules vs making a decision.

I noticed. It's a dead giveaway - perhaps you could let your mothership know so that they can be more effective when training you to blend in with the real humans on future missions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. By boarding the plane and allowing the extra 20 minutes to get voluntary bumpers it allows for more voluntary bumping instead of involuntary bumping. If they make the decision decision earlier to bump people involuntarily because they can't board, more people will be involuntarily bumped.

That makes no sense. The target of seats to reallocate is constant.

Once again you miss the point.

He didn't say the number of bumps would change. He said the VDB/IDB ratio would change because they wouldn't have as much time to get people to volunteer. (It's generally not just a simple bidding process. For example, once they were offering $400 in travel credits--I counter-offered $400 in cash as the travel credits only can be used on domestic flights.)

No. Pushing the decision earlier means more flights get cancelled.

You need to explain why.

It will cause last minute situations that can only be resolved by cancelling a flight.

Choices: Boot a passenger or cancel the flight (thus booting everyone.)

What is the right choice?

Offer enough compensation for someone to voluntarily give up a seat. Duh.

You just outed the FAM and got in trouble with the government.

 

[Ford]

"Solutions" that for the most part simply show a lack of understanding of the situation.

Your position is based upon nothing but assumptions on your part. At least you've admitted (finally) that you have no idea what flight they were supposed to crew, nor when it departed. Yet you nonetheless assumed it was for the first flight of the following day based upon no evidence whatsoever, then acted as if that were the literal truth.

Reality: Airlines only make money when their planes are in the air. Most planes spend most of their time loading/flying/unloading.

You assumed it was the first flight because that fit your narrative about rest rules, but even then you don't have a leg to stand on because you admittedly don't even know when that flight was scheduled to leave.

Of course I assumed it was the first flight--if it wasn't they would already have crew on the plane!

You could easily shut down me, my "side," and this whole argument by providing a few simple pieces of information. The time that the crew's flight was scheduled to depart, the number of hours of rest required, and the arrival times of the other flights available to them. If the rules say they need 10 hours of rest, they don't get into Louisville until10pm, and their flight leaves at 7am, you win. We all shut up, and concede that you and United were perfectly justified (though the cops were overly violent).

AFIAK United has not released that first piece of information. I do not know the flight number of the other United flight, I do know it departed 3 hours later so it's reasonable to assume it also arrives about 3 hours later--so I added three hours to the arrival time of the problematic flight to figure when it would get there. That puts it too late for most first flights of the day.

I find it fascinating that in all the coverage of this incident, that information hasn't come out yet.

Only United knows the key piece of information.

Fascinating because that information could shut down not just this little spat on some small internet forum, but shut down most of the criticism of United and shift the discussion to the actions of the security personnel. If rest rules were in play, then United could easily release the information about the flight the crew was going to staff in Louisville, explain why they would have been required to have a specific number of hours of rest prior to that flight, and thus why they absolutely could not take any other later flight lest they risk not being sufficiently rested for the next day.

Most people that are objecting to United's behavior don't actually care about what alternatives they had. I see multiple people here saying the should have done something--with no regard for whether there was a viable something to do.

United's CEO could patiently explain this, point out that they were attempting to comply with the rules, and that any other course of action would have put the lives of the crew and their passengers at risk the next day. Commuter airline flights have crashed because of exhausted pilots. People have died because crews were overworked. Simple explanation, right?

It wouldn't have put anyone's life at risk because the result would not be a crew flying tired, it would be a crew not flying at all. Hundreds of inconvenienced passengers, not just 4.

So, for shits and giggles I did what you were unable or unwilling to do. Looked it up. Here's the scheduled arrivals at SDF (that's Louisville):

Now here's where your "side" of the story falls apart, Loren. Thanks to the delay (dragging the man off the plane, deboarding the other passengers, cleaning up the blood, etc.), Flight 3411 was delayed, and landed in Louisville around 10pm. Ten hours later is 8am, a half hour after the departure of the first United flight out of Louisville.

Foot, meet bullet. All you showed is that most likely United did the right thing.

Not at all. The onus is still on you to provide information you admit you don't have. You keep referencing rest rules, but can't prove those rules would even apply in this scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if they'd followed ordinary operating airline procedures, they'd have offered more money.

Try some reality.

Every airline has a limit on what they will offer. On most airlines that limit is what it would cost to IDB a passenger.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, if they'd followed ordinary operating airline procedures, they'd have offered more money.

Try some reality.

Every airline has a limit on what they will offer. On most airlines that limit is what it would cost to IDB a passenger.

They never reached that limit. You already know this since you were told at least 5 times now.. Are you just ignoring information that doesn't let you continue to whinge? Seems counter-productive.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Companies are fundamentally sadistic, not greedy or profit-seeking. Their primary goal is to INFLICT PAIN onto people.

There is an underground cabal somewhere which secretly rewards capitalists according to how much pain they inflict onto society.

"Solutions" that for the most part simply show a lack of understanding of the situation.

Reality: Airlines only make money when their planes are in the air. Most planes spend most of their time loading/flying/unloading.

You assumed it was the first flight because that fit your narrative about rest rules, but even then you don't have a leg to stand on because you admittedly don't even know when that flight was scheduled to leave.

Of course I assumed it was the first flight--if it wasn't they would already have crew on the plane!

You could easily shut down me, my "side," and this whole argument by providing a few simple pieces of information. The time that the crew's flight was scheduled to depart, the number of hours of rest required, and the arrival times of the other flights available to them. If the rules say they need 10 hours of rest, they don't get into Louisville until10pm, and their flight leaves at 7am, you win. We all shut up, and concede that you and United were perfectly justified (though the cops were overly violent).

AFIAK United has not released that first piece of information. I do not know the flight number of the other United flight, I do know it departed 3 hours later so it's reasonable to assume it also arrives about 3 hours later--so I added three hours to the arrival time of the problematic flight to figure when it would get there. That puts it too late for most first flights of the day.

I find it fascinating that in all the coverage of this incident, that information hasn't come out yet.

Only United knows the key piece of information.

Fascinating because that information could shut down not just this little spat on some small internet forum, but shut down most of the criticism of United and shift the discussion to the actions of the security personnel. If rest rules were in play, then United could easily release the information about the flight the crew was going to staff in Louisville, explain why they would have been required to have a specific number of hours of rest prior to that flight, and thus why they absolutely could not take any other later flight lest they risk not being sufficiently rested for the next day.

Most people that are objecting to United's behavior don't actually care about what alternatives they had. I see multiple people here saying they should have done something--with no regard for whether there was a viable something to do.

United's CEO could patiently explain this, point out that they were attempting to comply with the rules, and that any other course of action would have put the lives of the crew and their passengers at risk the next day. Commuter airline flights have crashed because of exhausted pilots. People have died because crews were overworked. Simple explanation, right?

It wouldn't have put anyone's life at risk because the result would not be a crew flying tired, it would be a crew not flying at all. Hundreds of inconvenienced passengers, not just 4.

So, for shits and giggles I did what you were unable or unwilling to do. Looked it up. Here's the scheduled arrivals at SDF (that's Louisville):

Now here's where your "side" of the story falls apart, Loren. Thanks to the delay (dragging the man off the plane, deboarding the other passengers, cleaning up the blood, etc.), Flight 3411 was delayed, and landed in Louisville around 10pm. Ten hours later is 8am, a half hour after the departure of the first United flight out of Louisville.

Foot, meet bullet. All you showed is that most likely United did the right thing.

Not at all. The onus is still on you to provide information you admit you don't have. You keep referencing rest rules, but can't prove those rules would even apply in this scenario.

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

The fallback position is that it is in the company's best interest to do what's best for the consumers/public, because doing this increases their profit margin, and we should always assume that the company does what best promotes profit. Except when they make a mistake, in which case they have all the necessary incentive to find a correction.

 

[LordKiran]

There is an underground cabal somewhere which secretly rewards capitalists according to how much pain they inflict onto society.

"Solutions" that for the most part simply show a lack of understanding of the situation.

Reality: Airlines only make money when their planes are in the air. Most planes spend most of their time loading/flying/unloading.

You assumed it was the first flight because that fit your narrative about rest rules, but even then you don't have a leg to stand on because you admittedly don't even know when that flight was scheduled to leave.

Of course I assumed it was the first flight--if it wasn't they would already have crew on the plane!

You could easily shut down me, my "side," and this whole argument by providing a few simple pieces of information. The time that the crew's flight was scheduled to depart, the number of hours of rest required, and the arrival times of the other flights available to them. If the rules say they need 10 hours of rest, they don't get into Louisville until10pm, and their flight leaves at 7am, you win. We all shut up, and concede that you and United were perfectly justified (though the cops were overly violent).

AFIAK United has not released that first piece of information. I do not know the flight number of the other United flight, I do know it departed 3 hours later so it's reasonable to assume it also arrives about 3 hours later--so I added three hours to the arrival time of the problematic flight to figure when it would get there. That puts it too late for most first flights of the day.

I find it fascinating that in all the coverage of this incident, that information hasn't come out yet.

Only United knows the key piece of information.

Fascinating because that information could shut down not just this little spat on some small internet forum, but shut down most of the criticism of United and shift the discussion to the actions of the security personnel. If rest rules were in play, then United could easily release the information about the flight the crew was going to staff in Louisville, explain why they would have been required to have a specific number of hours of rest prior to that flight, and thus why they absolutely could not take any other later flight lest they risk not being sufficiently rested for the next day.

Most people that are objecting to United's behavior don't actually care about what alternatives they had. I see multiple people here saying they should have done something--with no regard for whether there was a viable something to do.

United's CEO could patiently explain this, point out that they were attempting to comply with the rules, and that any other course of action would have put the lives of the crew and their passengers at risk the next day. Commuter airline flights have crashed because of exhausted pilots. People have died because crews were overworked. Simple explanation, right?

It wouldn't have put anyone's life at risk because the result would not be a crew flying tired, it would be a crew not flying at all. Hundreds of inconvenienced passengers, not just 4.

So, for shits and giggles I did what you were unable or unwilling to do. Looked it up. Here's the scheduled arrivals at SDF (that's Louisville):

Now here's where your "side" of the story falls apart, Loren. Thanks to the delay (dragging the man off the plane, deboarding the other passengers, cleaning up the blood, etc.), Flight 3411 was delayed, and landed in Louisville around 10pm. Ten hours later is 8am, a half hour after the departure of the first United flight out of Louisville.

Foot, meet bullet. All you showed is that most likely United did the right thing.

Not at all. The onus is still on you to provide information you admit you don't have. You keep referencing rest rules, but can't prove those rules would even apply in this scenario.

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

The fallback position is that it is in the company's best interest to do what's best for the consumers/public, because doing this increases their profit margin, and we should always assume that the company does what best promotes profit. Except when they make a mistake, in which case they have all the necessary incentive to find a correction.

Nice try, but no. The criticisms of United's handling of the situations in themselves have nothing to do with rest rules, which is why LP was the one who brought them up (But refuses to expand upon to any appreciable detail) Sorry, but if LP want's to defend United's decision as an attempt to comply with a set of guidelines, then it would be REALLY HELPFUL if he could demonstrate what those guidelines are, and how forcing four random people off of a given flight was the only way they could meet such compliance. (As in, no comparable alternatives)

 

[Ford]

The onus -- "burden of proof" -- is on those self-appointed experts who claim the company did the wrong thing -- "wrong" meaning that the public, the travelers, customers/consumers generally were made worse off by the company's decision/action. Where are your facts that they made the public worse off?

My position has little to do with whether the public was worse off. I'm arguing that there's no evidence whatsoever that United absolutely had to get the crew in question on the flight in question.

United, Loren, and (apparently) you are claiming that there was no other option than to drag passengers off the plane so that their employees could get to their next gig on time. That this doctor was impeding the airline's flight operations.

There is nothing to back up that claim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they'd followed ordinary operating airline procedures, they'd have offered more money.

Try some reality.

Every airline has a limit on what they will offer. On most airlines that limit is what it would cost to IDB a passenger.

How is that some kind of retort to my post? Of course they have limits. Since they were only at a bit over half of what they say they're willing to offer, they went to Defcon 4 (or 1 - I don't know which is higher) a long way too early.