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

[Tom Sawyer]

Really, any decision would have been better than the one they made and any follow up reaction from them would have been better than the one they had.

Given the rumblings about Trump clearing house sometime soon, I think we can see some people from United Airlines joining his team. They'll fit right in.

 

[ksen]

The articles I linked earlier address this. If there is ambiguity in the wording of the contract, it must legally be interpreted in the most negative light against the party who wrote the contract (something that I learned today). United wrote the contract, so boarding must be the act of boarding the aircraft, not when it pushes off from the gate.

^^^ that

It would be so nice if people would read the articles and citations that other people so kindly provide.

or that they even provide themselves

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[ksen]

There is no ambiguity in the clause I linked earlier which says a seat is not guaranteed and the airline reserves the right to revoke it at any time.

The section that deals with involuntary boarding merely spells out the compensation those denied boarding are entitled to. If your argument is he was not denied boarding you would be arguing he is not entitled to the compensation for having been denied boarding. That seems a harsh interpretation to make.

Of course there's plenty of ambiguity, and it's really disingenuous that you're pretending that there isn't. 4D is clearly talking about seat assignments, but leaves out any mention of if the seat reassignment is on the same plane or a different flight. If the interpretation is in favor of the passenger, that means that the airline has the right to move his seat on that plane, and not kick him off the flight altogether.

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.

protip: he doesn't care

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

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.

You're not mad at United Airlines, you're mad at America

 

[bilby]

Since we are now going to inconvenience the passengers, they could have asked all the passengers to get off the plane and ask them to board. I guess that's what they should have done instead.

Well according to the defenders of this action on the thread, United could have legally kicked every single passenger off the plane every bit as violently as they did the doctor, flown to Louisville with their replacement crew alone on board, and they would have not just been right to do so, but such action would be unimpeachable. They own the plane, after all, and can throw a tantrum over who gets to be on board at any time. Or they could let all the passengers (doctor excepted) stay on board, fly to Cleveland instead, forcibly debark the non-employees at gunpoint, and be on their way back to Kentucky.

After all, the passengers have no rights whatsoever, and at any moment the airline could declare them to be trespassers and treat them with impunity.

This doctor fellow got off light.

Hey, he should count himself lucky that they declared him a trespasser while the plane was still on the ground. Next time they might decide a passenger has to remove himself from their airplane at 40,000 feet.

 

[beero1000]

Damage control has begun.

When asked whether he believed the passenger, David Dao, a 69-year-old physician from Elizabethtown, Ky., was at fault, Munoz — who originally described Dao as “belligerent” — hesitated before saying, “No, he can’t be. He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way, period."

Munoz said United will evaluate at its procedures, and ensure that law enforcement will not be allowed on one of its planes “to remove a booked, paid, seating passenger” ever again.

Later in the day United said all passengers on the flight will receive “compensation for the cost of their tickets.”

Such moves are the right first steps, according to branding experts, but the Chicago-based airline will have to do a lot more to regain the trust of customers.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is nothing like that at all. Once this man boarded the plane, the seat was his - something that has been made clear in this thread. It is more like saying that once a customer at McDonald's paid for his meal and it was given to him, he is entitled to eat it, and not have it taken from him and then get assaulted because he complained.

You do realize that there were more people on the plane than just this man. Upping the compensation eventually would have induced someone to give up their seat. And the notion that the compensation would have been millions or even 10s of thousands of dollars is ridiculous.
As a result of this fiasco, United Airlines may lose business, let alone any possible settlement from a lawsuit.

Since we are now going to inconvenience the passengers, they could have asked all the passengers to get off the plane and ask them to board. I guess that's what they should have done instead.

You are babbling utter nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Much easier to prevent somebody from entering a plane than dragging them off.

A problem of communication.

Really the fault of the people who allowed the customer to get on the plane.

The question is, when the airline is at fault how much force is allowed to be perpetrated on others to rectify it?

They could have asked everyone to get off the plane and then when everyone was reboarding they could have asked him not to get on. Would passengers have been better off in that situation?

Again, that would be a response to THEIR error.

What are they allowed to do when THEY make errors?

 

[bilby]

Damage control has begun.

When asked whether he believed the passenger, David Dao, a 69-year-old physician from Elizabethtown, Ky., was at fault, Munoz — who originally described Dao as “belligerent” — hesitated before saying, “No, he can’t be. He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way, period."

Munoz said United will evaluate at its procedures, and ensure that law enforcement will not be allowed on one of its planes “to remove a booked, paid, seating passenger” ever again.

Later in the day United said all passengers on the flight will receive “compensation for the cost of their tickets.”

Such moves are the right first steps, according to branding experts, but the Chicago-based airline will have to do a lot more to regain the trust of customers.

That there is such a thing as a 'Branding expert' who is needed to tell managers how to restore their public image after their company beats the shit out of a customer in public, is a strong indication that the system is fucked up beyond all recognition.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They could have asked everyone to get off the plane and then when everyone was reboarding they could have asked him not to get on. Would passengers have been better off in that situation?

Again, that would be a response to THEIR error.

What are they allowed to do when THEY make errors?

But it's not a mistake because a lot of businesses have models where they overbook, including the medical industry. Most times there is no problems, but sometimes you'll have to sit two hours in a doctor's office waiting for your appointment.

Airlines overbook because they have cancellations by passengers, missed connections, and they are okay with offering some rewards to passengers who are willing to be placed in a different queue. Passengers benefit in all of those categories.

So the model is: 30 minutes prior to departure they start boarding the flight but knowing they are or might be overbooked they offer people vouchers but keep boarding. At 10 mins till they close the doors. Under that model the group of people who arrive at the airport, whether it's from a connecting flight or a driving to the airport have an extra 20 minutes to catch the flight

Under the don't board policy, at 30 minutes prior to departure, the airlines have to make the decision on who not to board to avoid this situation. Who gets cut, first people arriving late at the counter, (so more people missing initial flights) followed by connecting flights (more missed flights) and they stop offering vouchers. All of these hurt consumers.

 

[untermensche]

Again, that would be a response to THEIR error.

What are they allowed to do when THEY make errors?

But it's not a mistake because a lot of businesses have models where they overbook, including the medical industry. Most times there is no problems, but sometimes you'll have to sit two hours in a doctor's office waiting for your appointment.

Airlines overbook because they have cancellations by passengers, missed connections, and they are okay with offering some rewards to passengers who are willing to be placed in a different queue. Passengers benefit in all of those categories.

So the model is: 30 minutes prior to departure they start boarding the flight but knowing they are or might be overbooked they offer people vouchers but keep boarding. At 10 mins till they close the doors. Under that model the group of people who arrive at the airport, whether it's from a connecting flight or a driving to the airport have an extra 20 minutes to catch the flight

Under the don't board policy, at 30 minutes prior to departure, the airlines have to make the decision on who not to board to avoid this situation. Who gets cut, first people arriving late at the counter, (so more people missing initial flights) followed by connecting flights (more missed flights) and they stop offering vouchers. All of these hurt consumers.

The mistake was not overbooking.

The mistake was over boarding.

 

[repoman]

Damage control has begun.

That there is such a thing as a 'Branding expert' who is needed to tell managers how to restore their public image after their company beats the shit out of a customer in public, is a strong indication that the system is fucked up beyond all recognition.

The Fight Club monologue about deaths by companies could be rewritten about dragging people off planes.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

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

Anything which didn't make consumers overall better off.

 

[DBT]

The man paid for his seat. The seat was his for the duration of the flight. The airline has no right to evict a customer who has paid for a seat, is occupying that seat in the expectation of completing his flight.

The airline screwed up, they should have offered a large enough incentive to induce passengers to willingly postpone their trip.

At the end of it, that would have been the cheaper and better option for the reputation and standing of the airline, not to mention ongoing costs such as lawyers to fight litigation.

 

[bilby]

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

Anything which didn't make consumers overall better off.

You mean such as an airline publically using force to remove a passenger from a plane, thereby incurring a massive backlash from consumers and a likely enormous legal bill that will ultimately lead to higher ticket prices for those consumers?

That kind of thing? For example?

 

[whichphilosophy]

But it's not a mistake because a lot of businesses have models where they overbook, including the medical industry. Most times there is no problems, but sometimes you'll have to sit two hours in a doctor's office waiting for your appointment.

Airlines overbook because they have cancellations by passengers, missed connections, and they are okay with offering some rewards to passengers who are willing to be placed in a different queue. Passengers benefit in all of those categories.

So the model is: 30 minutes prior to departure they start boarding the flight but knowing they are or might be overbooked they offer people vouchers but keep boarding. At 10 mins till they close the doors. Under that model the group of people who arrive at the airport, whether it's from a connecting flight or a driving to the airport have an extra 20 minutes to catch the flight

Under the don't board policy, at 30 minutes prior to departure, the airlines have to make the decision on who not to board to avoid this situation. Who gets cut, first people arriving late at the counter, (so more people missing initial flights) followed by connecting flights (more missed flights) and they stop offering vouchers. All of these hurt consumers.

The mistake was not overbooking.

The mistake was over boarding.

One was certainly thrown overboard hence overboarded.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

If a person purchases a ticket he cannot reasonably be expected to factor in that the Airline would breach its contract of carriage.
The fact that the airline messed up and risked hundreds of other passengers waiting should not have been the particular travellers problem because the airline not he had a contract with another passenger.

Perhaps the airline can now expect a large lawsuit.

Let me give you an example

Philippine Airlines wanted to allocate some of its seats from Beijing to Manila a couple of years ago.
This was for any kind of economy.

It offered a free hotel for the night and a booking the next day.
An additional return ticket for a future flight.
Problem sorted with no violence necessary.

No matter how some wish to maximise profits at the expense of the welfare of people, an organisation which fails to deliver the goods and services paid for risks losing a lot of business, even if it is a sole capitalist monopoly.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Anything which didn't make consumers overall better off.

The costs to the airline have skyrocketed over this. You are always about lowering costs of the producers and even now cannot admit they fucked up.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The costs to the airline have skyrocketed over this. You are always about lowering costs of the producers and even now cannot admit they fucked up.

Silly communist. Corporations can't make mistakes. The invisible hand of the free market automatically corrects any errors in judgment before they get to the point that they'd affect consumers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The costs to the airline have skyrocketed over this. You are always about lowering costs of the producers and even now cannot admit they fucked up.

Silly communist. Corporations can't make mistakes. The invisible hand of the free market automatically corrects any errors in judgment before they get to the point that they'd affect consumers.

Nope they fuck up all the time, that's why 90% of businesses fail. But there are also times like in marriage where you can e right but sleeping on the downstairs couch doesn't mean you are right. and the addage, customers are always right, isn't true either.

Once he became unruly they should have said this flight is now cancelled, please unboard.