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

[coloradoatheist]

The issue here is that the rules aren't clear. This is one of the cases where it would have been better if there were more specific rules. But we do have a mechanism for determining the rules of contract and the Dr could have gotten off the plane and sued.

Or he could have held to the position that the lack of specific rules means that they had no right to remove him from the aircraft and then he could have called his lawyer to get clarification on the matter before submitting to potentially illegal commands. If United did not have the legal right to remove him, he's under no obligation to submit to their demands that he go.

Excpet the policy has been ongoing by all the airlines for decades, it wasn't something new, and it wasn't challenged before. The police could have said we don't know and left it at that, or that group should have said we don't have the authority to do it let's call the Chicago PD. But even a lawyer would say comply and then sue.

 

[Elixir]

The disturbing thing about all this is that a mega-corp used taxpayers' money to violently impose their will upon a customer, and nobody seems to see that as a harbinger of the way things are going. It's a cultural outgrowth of the Cheato "philosophy".

 

[ksen]

The disturbing thing about all this is that a mega-corp used taxpayers' money to violently impose their will upon a customer, and nobody seems to see that as a harbinger of the way things are going. It's a cultural outgrowth of the Cheato "philosophy".

tbf this is a trend that's been around longer than Trump's been in politics.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or he could have held to the position that the lack of specific rules means that they had no right to remove him from the aircraft and then he could have called his lawyer to get clarification on the matter before submitting to potentially illegal commands. If United did not have the legal right to remove him, he's under no obligation to submit to their demands that he go.

Excpet the policy has been ongoing by all the airlines for decades, it wasn't something new, and it wasn't challenged before. The police could have said we don't know and left it at that, or that group should have said we don't have the authority to do it let's call the Chicago PD. But even a lawyer would say comply and then sue.

Then that may have been what he would have done once he got off the phone with his lawyer. At the time that they dragged him out, he was checking to see what the law was. The police have no authority to enforce illegal orders, so verifying what the law is if you're given one is an acceptable action.

 

[laughing dog]

But even a lawyer would say comply and then sue.

According the a report on NPR that Arctish showed, the doctor was on the telephone with his lawyer about that when the security force decided to use force.

 

[DrZoidberg]

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

1. Given the current rules, what should UA have done instead?

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction. For starters they shouldn't have overbooked the plane. If they couldn't bribe anybody to get off the plan they'd just have to find a way to transport their staff on another plane. Is this really that complicated to figure out?

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

This was a PR disaster. No need to change the rules. They've already been punished. I'm sure they've learned their lesson.

 

[TSwizzle]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction.

The major airlines seemed to have stopped worrying about customer satisfaction years ago. Hopefully this will shake them up a bit and also get consumers to start kicking up a fuss about the shoddy treatment we have to put up with.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction.

The major airlines seemed to have stopped worrying about customer satisfaction years ago. Hopefully this will shake them up a bit and also get consumers to start kicking up a fuss about the shoddy treatment we have to put up with.

Either that or consumers will base their flight decisions on whichever ticket happens to be $2 cheaper and airlines will need to continue to do whatever they need to in order to pare costs down to the bone because the vast majority of customers don't actually give a shit about the shoddy treatment.

 

[TSwizzle]

The major airlines seemed to have stopped worrying about customer satisfaction years ago. Hopefully this will shake them up a bit and also get consumers to start kicking up a fuss about the shoddy treatment we have to put up with.

Either that or consumers will base their flight decisions on whichever ticket happens to be $2 cheaper and airlines will need to continue to do whatever they need to in order to pare costs down to the bone because the vast majority of customers don't actually give a shit about the shoddy treatment.

There really isn't a lot of choice for consumers. The "no frills" airlines have dragged the major airlines into the gutter, they didn't need to go.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Either that or consumers will base their flight decisions on whichever ticket happens to be $2 cheaper and airlines will need to continue to do whatever they need to in order to pare costs down to the bone because the vast majority of customers don't actually give a shit about the shoddy treatment.

Well, there was Trump Airlines. Survey after survey, they find that what fliers want is to leave on time and get there on time, preferably cheaply.

So he went with luxury, plush, gilt. With carpets so thick it was hard to push the drinks cart (his reply to flight attendants' concerns: Push harder) and bells and whistles and was surprised when people didn't flock to his airline for the amazing experience.

 

[Elixir]

The disturbing thing about all this is that a mega-corp used taxpayers' money to violently impose their will upon a customer, and nobody seems to see that as a harbinger of the way things are going. It's a cultural outgrowth of the Cheato "philosophy".

tbf this is a trend that's been around longer than Trump's been in politics.

Tru 'nuff. As TSwizzle observes, customer satisfaction has long since been relegated to the back burner by the airlines. In fact I recall getting into it with a United gate agent at DIA in... 1999 ? ...
They decided to put passengers on a bus from DIA to Colorado Springs because our flight was late getting into DIA. But they didn't even have any buses. So we waited deep into the night (were supposed to get to CS around 6pm) for a bus to get to DIA from Springs so it could take us back to CS. I asked the gate agent how he felt about selling us an airline ticket, then putting us on a bus with no recompense for the downgrade. He was totally unresponsive, so I observed "someone could go postal over that kind of treatment". He freaked out, threatened to have me arrested. I was pissed - "You're going to arrest me for ... WHAT? Using the word "postal" in an airport? THAT'S customer service!" He picked up the phone like he was calling security. I sat down in the gate area, waiting to see what would happen. Nothing happened.
That was my first inkling that UAL didn't give a shit about their customers' experience. The beaten doc just got the latest update to that policy...

 

[Malintent]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction. For starters they shouldn't have overbooked the plane. If they couldn't bribe anybody to get off the plan they'd just have to find a way to transport their staff on another plane. Is this really that complicated to figure out?

2. How should the rules be changed to prevent such a scene in the future?

This was a PR disaster. No need to change the rules. They've already been punished. I'm sure they've learned their lesson.

First of all, this was not an "overbooked flight". The airline fucked up and needed 4 more seats for their own staff in order to avoid a fine from the FAA for failing to staff the appropriate locations in legal way in the first place.

Second of all, "overbooked" is a term that I would like to lose from our vocabulary, with respect to some thing that airlines are expected to do. It is one thing to take more reservations for a thing than you have space for, expecting people will not show up, for which you do not accept payment until the customer shows up. like every single other business establishment in existence... they cannot charge you for not showing up to your dinner reservation - they just give the table to someone else that is willing to pay for it. They can choose not to accept future reservations from you if you abuse that.

When the airline accepts your money, there better be a service waiting for you when you arrive on time in the agreed upon location. If not, then the airline is committing fraud. You cannot legally sell something (take money for it) with no intention or possibility of providing it (if you sell 500 seats on a 450 seat plane, you have committed 50 counts of fraud).

 

[coloradoatheist]

Who cares about the rules? This is about maintain customer satisfaction. What they should have done is maintain customer satisfaction. For starters they shouldn't have overbooked the plane. If they couldn't bribe anybody to get off the plan they'd just have to find a way to transport their staff on another plane. Is this really that complicated to figure out?



This was a PR disaster. No need to change the rules. They've already been punished. I'm sure they've learned their lesson.

First of all, this was not an "overbooked flight". The airline fucked up and needed 4 more seats for their own staff in order to avoid a fine from the FAA for failing to staff the appropriate locations in legal way in the first place.

Second of all, "overbooked" is a term that I would like to lose from our vocabulary, with respect to some thing that airlines are expected to do. It is one thing to take more reservations for a thing than you have space for, expecting people will not show up, for which you do not accept payment until the customer shows up. like every single other business establishment in existence... they cannot charge you for not showing up to your dinner reservation - they just give the table to someone else that is willing to pay for it. They can choose not to accept future reservations from you if you abuse that.

When the airline accepts your money, there better be a service waiting for you when you arrive on time in the agreed upon location. If not, then the airline is committing fraud. You cannot legally sell something (take money for it) with no intention or possibility of providing it (if you sell 500 seats on a 450 seat plane, you have committed 50 counts of fraud).

How is it a screw up when weather delays cause your flight crew to go over FAA working hours limit? So they find another crew that's eligible to go on the plane and they work on getting them in time. So we have four inconvenience compared to hundreds.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Excpet the policy has been ongoing by all the airlines for decades, it wasn't something new, and it wasn't challenged before. The police could have said we don't know and left it at that, or that group should have said we don't have the authority to do it let's call the Chicago PD. But even a lawyer would say comply and then sue.

Then that may have been what he would have done once he got off the phone with his lawyer. At the time that they dragged him out, he was checking to see what the law was. The police have no authority to enforce illegal orders, so verifying what the law is if you're given one is an acceptable action.

A lawyer could not decide the legaility of a CoC and all relevant court cases in the 5 minutes. He would say get off then we'll sue. And for police it has to be an obvious illegal order or one well defined in court law (not the case here). This case involves a person on someone else's property and that property owner asking for them to leave their property. The issue comes to two rulings, what constitutes boarding and what constitutes one body complying with government regulations. An officer doesn't need to know the exact objects, he just has to make a reasonable one and knowing an airline has a lot of say over who flies on their plane is a reasonable one. That's why we have courts to see if United breached his contract, but the officer to ask someone to leave someone else's property.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then that may have been what he would have done once he got off the phone with his lawyer. At the time that they dragged him out, he was checking to see what the law was. The police have no authority to enforce illegal orders, so verifying what the law is if you're given one is an acceptable action.

A lawyer could not decide the legaility of a CoC and all relevant court cases in the 5 minutes. He would say get off then we'll sue. And for police it has to be an obvious illegal order or one well defined in court law (not the case here). This case involves a person on someone else's property and that property owner asking for them to leave their property. The issue comes to two rulings, what constitutes boarding and what constitutes one body complying with government regulations. An officer doesn't need to know the exact objects, he just has to make a reasonable one and knowing an airline has a lot of say over who flies on their plane is a reasonable one. That's why we have courts to see if United breached his contract, but the officer to ask someone to leave someone else's property.

I don't know that and I don't know why the average doctor would be expected to know that. He felt that their order was not a legal one and therefore was getting a legal opinion about it before doing anything. You're likely entirely correct that this is what the lawyer would have told him and the situation would have resolved itself at the end of his phone call had the officers waited that long.

Also, he had paid for his seat and taken it, which is the equivalent of renting someone's property. If you're about to move into an apartment and the landlord says he doesn't want you taking up residence, he has a lot more leeway on the matter than if you'd paid him rent and moved in. At that point, police officers cannot just remove you from the apartment simply because the owner of the property decided that he wanted to give it to someone else. Similarly, he had rented the seat for the duration of the flight and taken it, which is an entirely different situation than being outside the plane and wanting to take the seat. If the law is unclear, the police need to find out the specifics of the law before they proceed and especially before they resort to violence.

 

[Malintent]

First of all, this was not an "overbooked flight". The airline fucked up and needed 4 more seats for their own staff in order to avoid a fine from the FAA for failing to staff the appropriate locations in legal way in the first place.

Second of all, "overbooked" is a term that I would like to lose from our vocabulary, with respect to some thing that airlines are expected to do. It is one thing to take more reservations for a thing than you have space for, expecting people will not show up, for which you do not accept payment until the customer shows up. like every single other business establishment in existence... they cannot charge you for not showing up to your dinner reservation - they just give the table to someone else that is willing to pay for it. They can choose not to accept future reservations from you if you abuse that.

When the airline accepts your money, there better be a service waiting for you when you arrive on time in the agreed upon location. If not, then the airline is committing fraud. You cannot legally sell something (take money for it) with no intention or possibility of providing it (if you sell 500 seats on a 450 seat plane, you have committed 50 counts of fraud).

How is it a screw up when weather delays cause your flight crew to go over FAA working hours limit? So they find another crew that's eligible to go on the plane and they work on getting them in time. So we have four inconvenience compared to hundreds.

if only there were a way to find out what the weather might be in the next day or so, so that they can be appropriately prepared. darn completely random and unpredictable weather! snow, rain, heat wave.. who knows!

but seriously, weather delays are a completely different topic than the fraudulent practice of "overbooking".

Maintenance delays are another topic as well. just heading that off now.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How is it a screw up when weather delays cause your flight crew to go over FAA working hours limit? So they find another crew that's eligible to go on the plane and they work on getting them in time. So we have four inconvenience compared to hundreds.

if only there were a way to find out what the weather might be in the next day or so, so that they can be appropriately prepared. darn completely random and unpredictable weather! snow, rain, heat wave.. who knows!

but seriously, weather delays are a completely different topic than the fraudulent practice of "overbooking".

Maintenance delays are another topic as well. just heading that off now.

So you want the whole airlines to shut down because Weather Al says that the airport might have snow and then laugh when he is wrong? They try and get their planes out but in the process of trying to get planes out it might mean that staff go over hours and they need to find replacement crews. Scheduling all the pieces of an airlines is one of the hardest logistic issues of any company.

- - - Updated - - -

A lawyer could not decide the legaility of a CoC and all relevant court cases in the 5 minutes. He would say get off then we'll sue. And for police it has to be an obvious illegal order or one well defined in court law (not the case here). This case involves a person on someone else's property and that property owner asking for them to leave their property. The issue comes to two rulings, what constitutes boarding and what constitutes one body complying with government regulations. An officer doesn't need to know the exact objects, he just has to make a reasonable one and knowing an airline has a lot of say over who flies on their plane is a reasonable one. That's why we have courts to see if United breached his contract, but the officer to ask someone to leave someone else's property.

I don't know that and I don't know why the average doctor would be expected to know that. He felt that their order was not a legal one and therefore was getting a legal opinion about it before doing anything. You're likely entirely correct that this is what the lawyer would have told him and the situation would have resolved itself at the end of his phone call had the officers waited that long.

Also, he had paid for his seat and taken it, which is the equivalent of renting someone's property. If you're about to move into an apartment and the landlord says he doesn't want you taking up residence, he has a lot more leeway on the matter than if you'd paid him rent and moved in. At that point, police officers cannot just remove you from the apartment simply because the owner of the property decided that he wanted to give it to someone else. Similarly, he had rented the seat for the duration of the flight and taken it, which is an entirely different situation than being outside the plane and wanting to take the seat. If the law is unclear, the police need to find out the specifics of the law before they proceed and especially before they resort to violence.

Except cops don't have to do that. They don't have to be experts in the law of every fine print. That's the courts. There is a dispute between parties where one is on another person's property and the laws have given airlines a lot of leeway to say no. Being bumped is a well known turn. They settle the issue by asking someone to leave peacefully and then work it out.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Show me the written procedure.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except cops don't have to do that. They don't have to be experts in the law of every fine print. That's the courts. There is a dispute between parties where one is on another person's property and the laws have given airlines a lot of leeway to say no. Being bumped is a well known turn. They settle the issue by asking someone to leave peacefully and then work it out.

And they asked this and the guy was checking with his lawyer to see if it was something that they could ask. Then they grabbed him and threw him out before he could determine that. If police tell me I need to leave an apartment I'm renting, I'm not going anywhere until I call my lawyer and find out if that's a valid order. I know that tenants have rights and I may find myself in weaker legal situation if I voluntarily leave the premises, so I need to find that out before I go. If the cops aren't totally sure of what the law is in the situation, picking one side and saying that that party is correct and beating on the other guy isn't part of a decent procedure.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except cops don't have to do that. They don't have to be experts in the law of every fine print. That's the courts. There is a dispute between parties where one is on another person's property and the laws have given airlines a lot of leeway to say no. Being bumped is a well known turn. They settle the issue by asking someone to leave peacefully and then work it out.

And they asked this and the guy was checking with his lawyer to see if it was something that they could ask. Then they grabbed him and threw him out before he could determine that. If police tell me I need to leave an apartment I'm renting, I'm not going anywhere until I call my lawyer and find out if that's a valid order. I know that tenants have rights and I may find myself in weaker legal situation if I voluntarily leave the premises, so I need to find that out before I go. If the cops aren't totally sure of what the law is in the situation, picking one side and saying that that party is correct and beating on the other guy isn't part of a decent procedure.

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.