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

[TSwizzle]

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.

Maybe it's buried in Rule 21. Refusal of Transport.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Maybe it's buried in Rule 21. Refusal of Transport.

Now, that is a valid point. They are allowed to refuse transport to someone if there's a safety concern in allowing him to remain on the plane. By this guy staying in his seat, he got the shit kicked out of him by the airport security guards, so it was clearly unsafe for him to stay in his seat.

In light of this new information, it does appear that the airline was fully compliant with the law and I retract my previous opposition to their actions.

 

[dismal]

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.

a) I think the seats they give provide to employees count in terms of a flight being "oversold". If a plane has 80 seats and they assign 5 to employees, they have 75 seats to sell. If they sold 78 the plane is "oversold."

b) If you want to say Section 25 doesn't apply because he wasn't "denied boarding", then I guess you are arguing he's not entitled to the compensation to people who are denied boarding? Because that's all Section 25 really seems to address. That seems awfully harsh on your part.

There is also this in Rule 4D:

Seat assignments, regardless of class of service, are not guaranteed and are subject to change without notice. UA reserves the right to reseat a Passenger for any reason, including from an Economy Plus seat for which the applicable fee has been paid (fees range from 9 USD/CAD to 299 USD/CAD per flight segment per person), and if a Passenger is improperly or erroneously upgraded to a different class of service. If a Passenger is removed from an Economy Plus seat for which a fee has been paid, and the Passenger is not re-accommodated in an Economy Plus seat or a seat of equal or greater value, or if a Passenger is downgraded from a class of service and is not re-accommodated in a seat in an equal or greater class of service for which a fee has been paid, the Passenger will be eligible for a refund in accordance with Rule 27. UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew

.

I think this is why I heard someone say when discussing this case: That seat is not your seat. It's the airlines seat.

You never, at any time, acquire "a right" to be in a seat. You do acquire a right to certain compensation if you are denied boarding, which you, however, claim does not apply to this guy.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

a) I think the seats they give provide to employees count in terms of a flight being "oversold". If a plane has 80 seats and they assign 5 to employees, they have 75 seats to sell. If they sold 78 the plane is "oversold."

b) If you want to say Section 25 doesn't apply because he wasn't "denied boarding", then I guess you are arguing he's not entitled to the compensation to people who are denied boarding? Because that's all Section 25 really seems to address. That seems awfully harsh on your part.

There is also this in Rule 4D:

Seat assignments, regardless of class of service, are not guaranteed and are subject to change without notice. UA reserves the right to reseat a Passenger for any reason, including from an Economy Plus seat for which the applicable fee has been paid (fees range from 9 USD/CAD to 299 USD/CAD per flight segment per person), and if a Passenger is improperly or erroneously upgraded to a different class of service. If a Passenger is removed from an Economy Plus seat for which a fee has been paid, and the Passenger is not re-accommodated in an Economy Plus seat or a seat of equal or greater value, or if a Passenger is downgraded from a class of service and is not re-accommodated in a seat in an equal or greater class of service for which a fee has been paid, the Passenger will be eligible for a refund in accordance with Rule 27. UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew

.

I think this is why I heard someone say when discussing this case: That seat is not your seat. It's the airlines seat.

You never, at any time, acquire "a right" to be in a seat. You do acquire a right to certain compensation if you are denied boarding, which you, however, claim does not apply to this guy.

If United was fully justified in telling people to get off their plane, one would think they would have opened up with that.

If United was also concerned with possible bad publicity over the matter, you'd think they would have tried something other than having the man forcibly removed from the plane by security.

 

[Artemus]

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

This link shows how people are misapplying section 25.


ETA: A key point from the link:

Once someone in possession of a valid ticket has been seated – whether on an airplane, a train or bus, or at the symphony – he cannot be ordered to give up that which he has a valid contractual right to enjoy, simply because his seat is needed for someone else.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've been travelling internationally for years. When a plane is overbooked we find out when we check in but this is very rare since you can book a seat in advance.

Once Philippine Airlines in Beijing came around as people were checking in saying that they had overbooked. The offer was a hotel for the night while they waited for the next ticket and a free return ticket.

However a super save economy is sometimes really a stand-by ticket in disguise. When a higher grade economy is booked late, the low cost economy loses his or her seat.
On Etihad airlines, a full cost economy will often be upgraded to business class if there are seats available.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

If UA had given in to him, then what about the other 3 passengers who did comply? They too would have stayed on the plane, and the result would have been that the 4 crew members could not get to their destination, and so hundreds of passengers waiting elsewhere would have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. Probably a few doctors in that number who needed to get back to their job.

OR -- if UA gave in to only this one passenger who made a fuss, then the moral of the story is: No matter what, you can always get around the rules if you make a fuss -- just make a bigger fuss than the other guy.

Aren't there already procedures in place to prevent what happened (99.99% of the time)? But this one case, out of a few million, is the fluke which was inevitably going to happen.

Any alternative would mean HIGHER TICKET PRICES = lower standard of living for all.

The benefit of allowing for this odd case to happen, once every 5 or 10 years in a fluke situation out of millions, is lower ticket prices.

The public, or the passengers generally, are the ones who benefit from the rules being as they are and allowing this to happen somewhere once every few years.

I.e., the benefit is lower ticket prices.


WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? 2 questions:

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

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

Is there anything capitalism could do that you wouldn't greedily suck its dick over?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I figured this incident would show up here sooner or later.

United apparently had a last minute planning problem, not the doctor.

No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned. Rather, that crew was a last minute replacement for others that were either sick or stranded somewhere other than where they were supposed to be. The big airlines maintain some people on standby at their big cities specifically to take over if something goes wrong, these were no doubt some of them.

What could United have done differently? It is worth noting that Chicago is a hub for United. O'Hare is a major airport. If the airline needed to get their crew to Louisville they had many options including (a) putting the crew on another United flight, (b) putting them on another airline's flight, (c) putting them in a taxi to catch a flight out of Midway, or if all else fails (d) put them in a rental car for the 4 1/2 hour drive from Chicago to Louisville.

(letters added for reference)

c) and d) are non-starters--they get there too late, they don't get enough sleep, it's not legal for them to fly. You've made things worse, not better.

As for a) and b), I do not have the flight schedules needed to figure out if there even was another option and certainly not to figure out if there was space on other flights. Note, also, that another flight very well might have been too late to meet the crew rest laws.

The airline created this situation through their own lack of planning. They know (or should know) how many passengers they've booked, how many seats are available, and perhaps most importantly they should have not just one plan for transporting their employees to and fro, but a contingency in case that plan falls through.

No. Reality created the situation. They do have a plan--when things go tits up they shuffle crew and equipment to try to make things work. I've been stuck in the airport 8 hours because a bird went tits up, they didn't have a spare, we had to sit around until an incoming flight from Europe could be used for our flight.

They do have a plan--if they need to get crew someplace they put them on a plane heading there. Sometimes that means a passenger gets bumped.

The reality is that even if you have a ticket you don't always get a seat.

It might be weather. (I've been on a plane that went to the wrong country for this reason.)

It might be mechanical.

Delayed flights sometimes get cancelled because the crew times out, or a much greater delay while another crew is found.

It might be from overbooking. (A large number of tickets aren't flown. I've had the experience of buying the last seat--and it flew 10% empty.)

You might get bumped for weight. This really puzzles people locally--they get bumped for "weather" (note: no compensation due, the airline just needs to find you another flight) on a bright, sunny day without a cloud in sight and the flight isn't cancelled. (Reality: The problem is hot weather. The warmer the air the longer the takeoff roll. Once in a while on a really hot day a plane with a full fuel load has to leave off some passengers in order to get the takeoff roll down to the runway length.)

You might get bumped by deadheading crew.

You might get bumped by an air marshal.

Most of the time overbooks are resolved by offering money to people with more flexible plans. However, this doesn't resolve every case.

About 60,000 people/year get involuntarily bumped. Most of the time they're unhappy, they take their money and that's that. This guy refused, then fought the cops, then got away from the cops and ran back onto the plane as if that would somehow fix the situation and ended up carried out on a stretcher. Boo hoo. This guy exhibited such bad judgment that he shouldn't be a doctor anymore.

Now, there is something that should be done about the situation that I have been saying for years: Raise the mandated compensation for an involuntary bump. The airlines will offer more to get passengers to take a voluntary bump and they'll be more serious about finding volunteers before forcing matters. (As it stands the gate agents are under more pressure to do things on time than to find volunteers.) Note, though, that this will only reduce the problem, nothing can totally fix it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

United's mistake was to not look for people to give up their seats before the passengers were boarded. Then Rule 25 would be in effect. Once the passengers boarded they could only get rid of a passenger through Rule 21. They can make some kind of BS by saying that he was belligerent and thus he had to be removed for safety reasons, but the only reason he would have been belligerent, which it's not clear that he ever was, was because they harassed him. It'd be like arresting someone for "resisting arrest" -- not that that doesn't happen. They had no right to remove him or any other passenger once boarded just because they "overbooked". The ethical thing to have done would be to keep upping the offer until someone gave up the seat. In the long run, that would have been orders of magnitude cheaper than the payout that's coming from the lawsuit.

 

[beero1000]

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html

SOP

 

[RavenSky]

Maybe that doctor who was ejected is to blame -- he should have planned his schedule better to allow for the possibility of such a delay.

I don't know if you've bought airline tickets recently, but you generally have to plan your trip weeks or months out, constantly checking ticket prices to find the best fare.

United apparently had a last minute planning problem, not the doctor.

What could United have done differently? It is worth noting that Chicago is a hub for United. O'Hare is a major airport. If the airline needed to get their crew to Louisville they had many options including putting the crew on another United flight, putting them on another airline's flight, putting them in a taxi to catch a flight out of Midway, or if all else fails put them in a rental car for the 4 1/2 hour drive from Chicago to Louisville.

The airline created this situation through their own lack of planning. They know (or should know) how many passengers they've booked, how many seats are available, and perhaps most importantly they should have not just one plan for transporting their employees to and fro, but a contingency in case that plan falls through.

As the old saying goes "a failure of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

I also question why there were no jump seats available for the commuting crew members

 

[bilby]

I'm astonished that Lumpenproletariat has missed the obvious here.

Their other choice was to let the market take care of it - all they needed to do was to keep increasing the compensation offer until they had enough takers.

By failing to let the market operate, they have put themselves in a position where the total cost of the incident is massively higher than it needed to be - someone would have probably given up their seat for $1,000; and undoubtedly they would have been swamped with volunteers at $10,000. Even $100,000 would have been less costly than the option that actually chose.

Why a self-professed libertarian would prefer the initiation of violence, over the operation of a free market, I do not know.

Perhaps Lumpenproletariat is not a 'true' Libertarian?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I figured this incident would show up here sooner or later.



No. This wasn't a planning problem. The way things played out it's quite obvious it wasn't planned. Rather, that crew was a last minute replacement for others that were either sick or stranded somewhere other than where they were supposed to be. The big airlines maintain some people on standby at their big cities specifically to take over if something goes wrong, these were no doubt some of them.

What could United have done differently? It is worth noting that Chicago is a hub for United. O'Hare is a major airport. If the airline needed to get their crew to Louisville they had many options including (a) putting the crew on another United flight, (b) putting them on another airline's flight, (c) putting them in a taxi to catch a flight out of Midway, or if all else fails (d) put them in a rental car for the 4 1/2 hour drive from Chicago to Louisville.

(letters added for reference)

c) and d) are non-starters--they get there too late, they don't get enough sleep, it's not legal for them to fly. You've made things worse, not better.

As for a) and b), I do not have the flight schedules needed to figure out if there even was another option and certainly not to figure out if there was space on other flights. Note, also, that another flight very well might have been too late to meet the crew rest laws.

The airline created this situation through their own lack of planning. They know (or should know) how many passengers they've booked, how many seats are available, and perhaps most importantly they should have not just one plan for transporting their employees to and fro, but a contingency in case that plan falls through.

No. Reality created the situation. They do have a plan--when things go tits up they shuffle crew and equipment to try to make things work. I've been stuck in the airport 8 hours because a bird went tits up, they didn't have a spare, we had to sit around until an incoming flight from Europe could be used for our flight.

They do have a plan--if they need to get crew someplace they put them on a plane heading there. Sometimes that means a passenger gets bumped.

The reality is that even if you have a ticket you don't always get a seat.

It might be weather. (I've been on a plane that went to the wrong country for this reason.)

It might be mechanical.

Delayed flights sometimes get cancelled because the crew times out, or a much greater delay while another crew is found.

It might be from overbooking. (A large number of tickets aren't flown. I've had the experience of buying the last seat--and it flew 10% empty.)

You might get bumped for weight. This really puzzles people locally--they get bumped for "weather" (note: no compensation due, the airline just needs to find you another flight) on a bright, sunny day without a cloud in sight and the flight isn't cancelled. (Reality: The problem is hot weather. The warmer the air the longer the takeoff roll. Once in a while on a really hot day a plane with a full fuel load has to leave off some passengers in order to get the takeoff roll down to the runway length.)

You might get bumped by deadheading crew.

You might get bumped by an air marshal.

Most of the time overbooks are resolved by offering money to people with more flexible plans. However, this doesn't resolve every case.

About 60,000 people/year get involuntarily bumped. Most of the time they're unhappy, they take their money and that's that. This guy refused, then fought the cops, then got away from the cops and ran back onto the plane as if that would somehow fix the situation and ended up carried out on a stretcher. Boo hoo. This guy exhibited such bad judgment that he shouldn't be a doctor anymore.

Now, there is something that should be done about the situation that I have been saying for years: Raise the mandated compensation for an involuntary bump. The airlines will offer more to get passengers to take a voluntary bump and they'll be more serious about finding volunteers before forcing matters. (As it stands the gate agents are under more pressure to do things on time than to find volunteers.) Note, though, that this will only reduce the problem, nothing can totally fix it.

Oh LP, we can always trust you to produce in threads like this.

So, after all that said, what made it impossible for United to not foresee this before they started boarding?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville, but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

It is not so clear-cut that he didn't have the right to stay. But no matter how the precise legal case falls, United screwed up their own scheduling and then tried to force a paying customer to be badly inconvenienced by it against his will. Entirely inexcusable.

Another link on the passenger's rights.

from your first article:

Under certain conditions, airlines can bar passengers from boarding - if the passenger is unruly or intoxicated or on a terrorist watch list - but United had no right to remove Dao, says aviation law expert Arthur Wolk, a Center City attorney who read the 45-page “contract of carriage.”

bolding mine.

Good article. Thanks for the links!

 

[RavenSky]

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?

Dismal needs to read the links provided earlier regarding passenger rights. It appears to me that the passenger has an excellent and highly winnable lawsuit. The only question is how much he will win.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since there were no volunteers, the plane should have departed with the passengers on board.

So, instead of 4 passengers left behind at least one planeload gets left behind, likely more than one?

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

I don't know what the existing rules are exactly. But beating a passengers senseless before dragging him off the plane seems a tad excessive.

Nobody was beaten. His injuries were from falling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It was the airport police.

The airline told him to leave, he refused. At that point he's a trespasser. Police normally haul off trespassers, if they resist and get hurt, too bad.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville,

I don't think United goofed. This was obviously a last minute crew replacement, there is no other option but to stick them on a plane or else cancel whatever flight they were supposed to crew.

but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

I wouldn't say the passenger goofed, he was out of his mind. When the cops hauled him off he broke free and went back on the plane. He had to know he was in the wrong at that point.

 

[RavenSky]

It was the airport police.

The airline told him to leave, he refused. At that point he's a trespasser. Police normally haul off trespassers, if they resist and get hurt, too bad.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville,

I don't think United goofed. This was obviously a last minute crew replacement, there is no other option but to stick them on a plane or else cancel whatever flight they were supposed to crew.

but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

I wouldn't say the passenger goofed, he was out of his mind. When the cops hauled him off he broke free and went back on the plane. He had to know he was in the wrong at that point.

Loren... always on the side of abusive authority, even when multiple sources already provided so how wrong he is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 disagree. If anyone is in a position to sue here it's United, not this idiot.

Check the terms on your ticket more carefully--United was acting within the contract. (And it's the same with every other airline.)

 

[TSwizzle]

So, instead of 4 passengers left behind at least one planeload gets left behind, likely more than one?

In the long run, I think that would have been preferable to this debacle. The ramifications to this incident could be a lot more costly which is not good for share holders.

Nobody was beaten. His injuries were from falling.

Well perhaps not a beating as such but falling ? Falling from where, the overhead bin ?