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

[RavenSky]

This flight wasn't scheduled to be the one transport the flight crew for Louisville the next day but that changed when another crew went illegal and they had to find a crew to get to that flight and now they needed four seats to do that.

the bolded is yet another claim you keep making with providing your factual sources with links

 

[RavenSky]

I will ask but then you have a worse scheduling mess. You have a flight crew that needs four 4 people and you only have 3, you would have to delay the flight then since you don't have enough.

ANOTHER claim you keep making without any evidence whatsoever

 

[RavenSky]

40,000 people were involuntarily bumped last year so missing a flight because of scheduling, equipment, plan is a well know item when flying.

I will repeat - for the umpteenth time - your unsupported "40,000 people" claim is NOT for people who have already been boarded onto the airplane, and so has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

 

[RavenSky]

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and then offered an opinion, all of whom can cite literally tens of thousands of breach-of-contract judgments, is very stupid.

And every single law attorney has put up an opinion?

Relying on a straw man during a discussion is very stupid.

You made the argument that every lawyer said the same thing. Can you prove that?

Multiple articles with multiple links to multiple attorneys have been posted in this thread. Go read them

 

[RavenSky]

"Involuntary denied boarding"--the airline ...makes you get off.

bullshit

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but they are almost certainly not telling the truth here.

Sorry the opinion of an avowed authoritarian is immaterial to me

 

[bilby]

There are two ways to get someone to do something he doesn't want to do - pay him to do it, or use force.

United chose the latter. That's unacceptable.

Everything else is just bullshit that is being slung around in an attempt to defend this choice, and it can be safely discarded in a discussion about whether the choice was or was not acceptable.

There's obviously a limit to how much an airline could afford to pay for the seat they needed - but that limit is determined by how much they want the seat, and if it is reached, the seat should stay in the possession of the passenger who has occupied it. That's how a free market works - Person A has an item that person B wants. Person B offers payment for the item, and if person A values the payment more than he values the item, a mutually agreeable transaction takes place. If person B instead obtains the item from person A by the use of force, he has committed a crime.

To illustrate with totally made up numbers, if the cost to UA of their crew-member not being able to fly is $1,000,000, then they can maximize their return by incrementally increasing the offer of compensation until either one of the passengers decides to accept it; or the offer reaches $1,000,000, at which point it's cheaper to simply live with the fact that the crew member won't be able to fly. At no point is it necessary nor reasonable to use force.

They rented the seat to a passenger. He (and any of the other passengers) can decide to sell his tenancy (or not) at whatever price is offered. Of course it is unlikely that there won't be a passenger who is happy to relinquish his seat for far less than the amount UA stand to lose by not having access to it; But if so, then that's the way it is.

It doesn't matter why UA wanted the seat. It doesn't matter what the detailed results of them not getting that seat might be - all that does is set the upper limit of what they should be prepared to offer, before they give up and simply don't fly their crew-member on that flight.

 

[RavenSky]

If the crew didn't fly the flights they were being sent to fly would not fly--a far greater disruption than kicking this guy off the plane.

A completely unsupported claim that you and Colorado keep making

 

[RavenSky]

The problem is you are imposing an impossible burden here. This exact set of circumstances does not appear to have occurred before. However, the components have:

1) People do get booted even after boarding.

Prove it. Prove that people are involuntarily removed from flights that they have already been board for.

sometimes due to weather. (Weather situations that mean the plane has to go out with less than a full load.)

No one gives a flying fuck about weather because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

If people refuse to leave the aircraft when ordered off the cops haul them off. It's usually drunks this happens to.

No one gives a flying fuck about drunks being removed from flights because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

 

[RavenSky]

There are two ways to get someone to do something he doesn't want to do - pay him to do it, or use force.

United chose the latter. That's unacceptable.

Everything else is just bullshit that is being slung around in an attempt to defend this choice, and it can be safely discarded in a discussion about whether the choice was or was not acceptable.

There's obviously a limit to how much an airline could afford to pay for the seat they needed - but that limit is determined by how much they want the seat, and if it is reached, the seat should stay in the possession of the passenger who has occupied it. That's how a free market works - Person A has an item that person B wants. Person B offers payment for the item, and if person A values the payment more than he values the item, a mutually agreeable transaction takes place. If person B instead obtains the item from person A by the use of force, he has committed a crime.

To illustrate with totally made up numbers, if the cost to UA of their crew-member not being able to fly is $1,000,000, then they can maximize their return by incrementally increasing the offer of compensation until either one of the passengers decides to accept it; or the offer reaches $1,000,000, at which point it's cheaper to simply live with the fact that the crew member won't be able to fly. At no point is it necessary nor reasonable to use force.

They rented the seat to a passenger. He (and any of the other passengers) can decide to sell his tenancy (or not) at whatever price is offered. Of course it is unlikely that there won't be a passenger who is happy to relinquish his seat for far less than the amount UA stand to lose by not having access to it; But if so, then that's the way it is.

It doesn't matter why UA wanted the seat. It doesn't matter what the detailed results of them not getting that seat might be - all that does is set the upper limit of what they should be prepared to offer, before they give up and simply don't fly their crew-member on that flight.

^^^ very well presented

Can't wait to see how the so-called Libertarians try to argue against it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't know what flight it was. How do you know it didn't take off late due to late arrival of crew? (And, yes, "late arrival of crew" can mean they were sleeping in their hotel due to crew rest rules when they were scheduled to show up.)

No, we don't know what flight it was. Until such information is made available, we have no way of knowing. You continue to imply that it was an early morning flight, thus making crew rest rules an issue, but you have no evidence to back up that implication. Until you provide some evidence, you should probably put that argument on the back burner.

Just because we don't know you don't get to assume there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have already shown you do not know some of the relevant rules.[1]

However, you are claiming that they could have done better without having evidence of what better they could have done.[2]

This is just the usual liberal faith that there's a good answer if you just look hard enough. It's just as wrong as the crap we see out of religions basing decisions on faith.[3]

1. You have yet to prove that the rules are actually relevant.

The point is that you are assuming you know more than they do about how to handle it, despite not knowing the rules. Saying it hasn't been shown they are relevant isn't a rebuttal.

2. Said evidence is abundant throughout this thread. I don't feel any particular need to repeat information that is already available to you.

Now the burden of proof is clearly on your side--you are asserting they could have done better without knowing if any of the options work.

3. To restate my prior post, my observations are as follows:

No rebuttal to the fact you're going on the liberal bible rather than what we know of the situation.

1: Companies like United are globe spanning conglomerates, the functioning of which is impossible without the delegation of administrative duties to lower-level staff.

Except this isn't a globe-spanning conglomerate. This was not United, but rather a regional airline subcontractor.

2: If said staff members are not appropriately invested in the well being of the company, they may be prone to making decisions based on what is convenient for themselves and their immediate workflow, with little regard for the bigger picture.

I strongly suspect this decision was made by computer, anyway.

3: In light of observations 1 and 2, there is reason to not assume that a company will automatically work towards the best outcome in every situation, as if all members of said corporation are always on the same page 100% of the time

You're doubling down on your faith attack. You are showing that it's possible they missed something, you are not showing that they missed something.

You can either show me how these observations are wrong, or you can back down and move on...Or you can continue trying to out-bluff me, as if I didn't just call your bluff.
If you're worried about humiliating me or something then don't be. Go right ahead. Show the whole world how misguided I am. My ego can take the hit.

What I will not stand for is you talking down to me and then trying not to answer for it.

You are clearly acting on faith rather than reason here. We have no evidence any of the other proposed options would work and a simple check of the numbers shows they will not work unless the relevant flight is later in the day. It is unlikely the flight is later in the day because that would mean a plane sitting idle--and planes that sit idle don't make money. Airlines like to keep them moving.

 

[Ford]

No, we don't know what flight it was. Until such information is made available, we have no way of knowing. You continue to imply that it was an early morning flight, thus making crew rest rules an issue, but you have no evidence to back up that implication. Until you provide some evidence, you should probably put that argument on the back burner.

Just because we don't know you don't get to assume there wouldn't have been a problem.

You're the one insisting that there was. You've taken it as gospel that crew rest rules were at play here. Your whole argument is based upon your assumption that the crew was going to Louisville to staff an early flight.

You've already conceded that you don't know the time of the flight, so why continue to act as if you do?


I know I won't get an answer, but I had to ask.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

bullshit

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but they are almost certainly not telling the truth here.

Sorry the opinion of an avowed authoritarian is immaterial to me

It's the near-consensus opinion of a board full of frequent fliers.

Their story doesn't add up, it's much more likely they're garden variety seat poachers trying to cash in.

- - - Updated - - -

If the crew didn't fly the flights they were being sent to fly would not fly--a far greater disruption than kicking this guy off the plane.

A completely unsupported claim that you and Colorado keep making

Because we can actually reason rather than merely regurgitate cherry-picked facts.

If the absence of the crew wouldn't cause a flight not to fly then why would they rush a crew out???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prove it. Prove that people are involuntarily removed from flights that they have already been board for.

The case I'm aware of is from a gate agent who did the booting, hence not something I can prove.

The thing is booting after boarding is not a newsworthy event. A lack of news about it happening means nothing. This case only became news is the guy fought the cops.

sometimes due to weather. (Weather situations that mean the plane has to go out with less than a full load.)

No one gives a flying fuck about weather because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

Except it does--because it sometimes causes booting after boarding.

If people refuse to leave the aircraft when ordered off the cops haul them off. It's usually drunks this happens to.

No one gives a flying fuck about drunks being removed from flights because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

Except it does--the point is the airline can refuse to fly a passenger that already boarded.

 

[laughing dog]

Except it does--the point is the airline can refuse to fly a passenger that already boarded.

As usual, you miss the point. The airline can refuse to fly a passenger who has already boarded under certain circumstances. Stupidity or cupidity on the part of the airline is not one of those circumstances.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except it does--the point is the airline can refuse to fly a passenger that already boarded.

As usual, you miss the point. The airline can refuse to fly a passenger who has already boarded under certain circumstances. Stupidity or cupidity on the part of the airline is not one of those circumstances.

Yes and no. The contract that you have with them provides multiple provisions of what has to be done and who has to pay what for certain conditions

They are

1) The airlines does not have to get the person to the final destination and the airline does not have to return the money
2) The airline does not get the person to the final destination but they just need to return the paid money
3) The airline delivers the person to the destination within 2 hours
4) The airline delivers the person to the destination after that period and prior to another time frame
5) The airline delivers the person much later or does not deliver them

So there are different times that the parties can breech the contract and the penalty that that is applied. For example if you are drunk on the plane and they remove you for it, the passenger breached the contract and the airline does not have to pay the person back.

So in the case of the Dr they revoked his license to be on the plane when they asked him to leave. Since he did not comply he became a trespasser. At that point the airline did not breach their contract. They could still get him to the destination within two hours of getting to the destination. But since he was going to get there by the 2 hour or later period, the breach of contract would be the 4 times what he paid.

 

[barbos]

I admit I did not know about over-boarding thing, but I do know that fighting Police or in this case security over minor (on the grand schemes of things) thing is stupid. You are not gonna win, unless your goal is to get beaten and then successfully sue. Doctors should know better.
Having said that, the relevant rule I know and knew before is that plane's captain is the boss there and he can throw anybody out and give explanation later.

 

[Will Wiley]

Man dragged from home after putting phone in Airplane Mode

“I’d been very excited about my new phone as I’d never had one before. I made myself a cup of tea and turned my new phone on to see what it did. There were a few things that I wasn’t quite sure about and one of them was the Airplane Mode. Firstly, I couldn’t understand why it didn’t say Aeroplane Mode and then I wondered what happened if I pressed it. I thought my armchair might sprout a pair of wings or something. What I wasn’t expecting was a large group of armed police crashing through my window and dragging me from my chair. They dragged me out of the house and down the street where a few of the boys saw what was going on and tried to stop them. At one point, I was being pulled like Stretch Armstrong and I realise now that I’m about 1 foot taller than I was this morning. The police gave no explanation as to why they dragged me from the house but I did hear one of them mutter that I was overbooked.”

 

[DBT]

I admit I did not know about over-boarding thing, but I do know that fighting Police or in this case security over minor (on the grand schemes of things) thing is stupid. You are not gonna win, unless your goal is to get beaten and then successfully sue. Doctors should know better.
Having said that, the relevant rule I know and knew before is that plane's captain is the boss there and he can throw anybody out and give explanation later.

It's just not the way to treat customers.

Did he initiate a fight? Or did he simply refuse to comply?

His non compliance and perhaps growing belligerence at being forced to give up his seat causing the airport police to get frustrated, consequently resorting to physically removing him from his seat?

However it went, it was a bad choice to physically remove passengers on the part of airlines decision makers.

 

[barbos]

I admit I did not know about over-boarding thing, but I do know that fighting Police or in this case security over minor (on the grand schemes of things) thing is stupid. You are not gonna win, unless your goal is to get beaten and then successfully sue. Doctors should know better.
Having said that, the relevant rule I know and knew before is that plane's captain is the boss there and he can throw anybody out and give explanation later.

It's just not the way to treat customers.

Did he initiate a fight? Or did he simply refuse to comply?

I understand he refused to comply flight crew order, hence security was called at which point he refused to comply to their orders too.

His non compliance and perhaps growing belligerence at being forced to give up his seat causing the airport police to get frustrated, consequently resorting to physically removing him from his seat?

Yes, seems to be what happened.

However it went, it was a bad choice to physically remove passengers on the part of airlines decision makers.

I understand they do it quite often, more at the gate though.
They should have offered more money, simply because people were already on the plane.
In any case I don't want to be treated by such doctor. I prefer more calm ones.