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

[coloradoatheist]

And that is relevant because?

Maybe #2, but that's assuming facts we don't know that they could have made it in time.

Someone in this thread posted a link to a McClacthey report that said there were at least 3 options on UA or other airlines that would have gotten the crew to its destination on time.

Or the other option was to cancel the flight, would have been less costly.

Not less costly than the first 2.

Since it sounded like the 4 crew were required to be at the other airport, or face fines it is much better to put them on your flight which you can control then putting them on a different airlines which you can't control. since they couldn't get them on those other flights does sound like those flights would be full and then it would up to one of the other airlines to bump passengers for a competitor.

They needed 4 seats, so at $1500 that's $6K for the four of them and at $300 a ticket they would be losing 20 seats of revenue. At same point you do have to say that we aren't going to lose all of our revenue just to to make one person happy.

So can you explain to me why the business' mismanagement should be made the customer's problem? This goes beyond what is legal and what is not. This comes down to basic principles of service and customer care. If a resturaunt decided to kick you and your party out so they could seat a more 'important' guest, they might have every right to do that, but it still speaks to how poorly that business regards you and your custom and the poor business ethic of the proprietor. Just because a business has the legal wherewithal to take an action doesn't make it okay, and this is all assuming that United was in the legal right to begin with, which remains to be seen.

It's not mismanagement, and this issue deals with all businesses to some degree. We've all gone to a restaurant or a business where they didn't have enough resources to cover what you wanted, whether it's the time you got into your appointment, the ingredients to make your food, the staff to serve it, etc. I've sat in doctors offices for hours because they overbooked. What people don't like is that there is fine print to everything and don't want to take the time to read it all and with airline travel there is no guarantee that you will get to your destination on time whether its weather, mechanical failures, crew issues, plane type, etc. If you want to be guaranteed to make it to someone in the time you want, you drive yourself. You trade convenience for uncertainty.

But also knowing the legal right would also come down to the security firm that was called in. Are the police who should know the rules, or just a private security, etc. Has there been Supreme Court cases where this issue has appeared and the airlines know for sure where it stands?

- - - Updated - - -

That is the very successful business model of Health Clubs. Ever tried to workout at one in January or February?

Regardless, I would need to see the numbers. I thought I read about 20,000 to 40,000 seats were bumped on airlines in the past year, which given the total number flying annually, isn't that high. And I think the $850 to $1350 depending on the delay time for a bumped passenger is meant to cover additional costs, not just the flight.

The airliners are trying to put buns in every seat, so I can understand their purpose. If flights were always selling out and being overbooked and people were always being bumped on a majority of flights, the system would need an overhaul, but it doesn't sound like that is the case. But if the numbers show otherwise, I'm open to seeing them.

- - - Updated - - -

The practice of airlines overbooking to maximize their profits should be criminal. Sure, mistakes can happen.. in that case, FULL compensation would be expected (full retail cost of ticket plus every penny of expense, such as cost of hotel, cost of time off from work... every penny).

Selling a seat on a plane that does not exist is (should be) fraud. In what other industry is it acceptable to solicit and take payments for services that have no intention or possibility to provide (such as selling 500 seats on a 450 passenger plane)?

The airlines are crooks. In these instances where people don't show up, they have charged twice for the same seat. And it's bullshit to suggest that this is to keep consumer costs down, it's to keep share holder dividends up.

Yet when Charter Schools do this, that is good business. /derail

Numbers game, ey? How many times is it ok for a restaurant to charge you for a meal that they give to the cook to eat? How often have you accepted that as perfectly acceptable?

I said I need to see the numbers. How many no-shows get their money back verses how many no-shows means a seat is paid for twice? I can't say one way or the other.

Professional services routinely charge for your missed appointment, but when is the reverse true? When does a doctors office pay for a appointment time they cancel?

 

[Shadowy Man]

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

There may may some legal ambiguity regarding as to when a passenger is deemed to have "boarded". i.e. is it when the passenger is "on board" or is it when doors are locked and push back from the gate has occurred. It will be in the "fine print" no doubt.

The fine print is the Contract of Carriage and it doesn't define "boarding" in its definitions sections. That means that in a court of law the ordinary meaning rule will be in play, and that means once you are in your seat you have boarded. United is going to lose big on this.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

They actually do have rights to evict a customer, and those are delineated in Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage. Unfortunately for United, the list does not include for the convenience of their employees. If they needed his seat they would have had to have dealt with that before he boarded.

 

[Malintent]

And that is relevant because?

Maybe #2, but that's assuming facts we don't know that they could have made it in time.

Someone in this thread posted a link to a McClacthey report that said there were at least 3 options on UA or other airlines that would have gotten the crew to its destination on time.

Or the other option was to cancel the flight, would have been less costly.

Not less costly than the first 2.

Since it sounded like the 4 crew were required to be at the other airport, or face fines it is much better to put them on your flight which you can control then putting them on a different airlines which you can't control. since they couldn't get them on those other flights does sound like those flights would be full and then it would up to one of the other airlines to bump passengers for a competitor.

They needed 4 seats, so at $1500 that's $6K for the four of them and at $300 a ticket they would be losing 20 seats of revenue. At same point you do have to say that we aren't going to lose all of our revenue just to to make one person happy.

So can you explain to me why the business' mismanagement should be made the customer's problem? This goes beyond what is legal and what is not. This comes down to basic principles of service and customer care. If a resturaunt decided to kick you and your party out so they could seat a more 'important' guest, they might have every right to do that, but it still speaks to how poorly that business regards you and your custom and the poor business ethic of the proprietor. Just because a business has the legal wherewithal to take an action doesn't make it okay, and this is all assuming that United was in the legal right to begin with, which remains to be seen.

a more accurate analogy would be that after kicking you out, you are required to pay for the other party's meal.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

They actually do have rights to evict a customer, and those are delineated in Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage. Unfortunately for United, the list does not include for the convenience of their employees. If they needed his seat they would have had to have dealt with that before he boarded.

Any portion of a contract that is deemed illegal (like, for example, taking money for services that were never intended on being provided - like selling 500 seats when you have only 450) is unenforceable.

 

[TSwizzle]

There may may some legal ambiguity regarding as to when a passenger is deemed to have "boarded". i.e. is it when the passenger is "on board" or is it when doors are locked and push back from the gate has occurred. It will be in the "fine print" no doubt.

The fine print is the Contract of Carriage and it doesn't define "boarding" in its definitions sections. That means that in a court of law the ordinary meaning rule will be in play, and that means once you are in your seat you have boarded. United is going to lose big on this.

I doubt United will contest Mr Dao's demands and it will be settled out of court. As for the thugs that man handled Mr Dao off the plane, I hope they get some punishment.

 

[Malintent]

There may may some legal ambiguity regarding as to when a passenger is deemed to have "boarded". i.e. is it when the passenger is "on board" or is it when doors are locked and push back from the gate has occurred. It will be in the "fine print" no doubt.

The fine print is the Contract of Carriage and it doesn't define "boarding" in its definitions sections. That means that in a court of law the ordinary meaning rule will be in play, and that means once you are in your seat you have boarded. United is going to lose big on this.

boarding is defined by the FAA in FAR part 135 (and regulations about staff responsibilities are covered in part 35). The second the passenger steps onto the plane, they have "boarded".
The second they pass the gate (onto the jetway or tarmac), they are "boarding".

"boarding" passengers are not yet part of the enplanement. Boarded passengers are.

All aspects of enplanement take immediate effect... pushback is not a delineation.

For example, it is against the rules for staff to allow an intoxicated person to board. Once they are boarded, there is no rule that says they must eject a person just for being intoxicated, even if they have not yet pushed back or even closed the doors yet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fine print is the Contract of Carriage and it doesn't define "boarding" in its definitions sections. That means that in a court of law the ordinary meaning rule will be in play, and that means once you are in your seat you have boarded. United is going to lose big on this.

boarding is defined by the FAA in FAR part 135 (and regulations about staff responsibilities are covered in part 35). The second the passenger steps onto the plane, they have "boarded".

As George Carlin would say, that is bullshit. He's going to step into the plane, not onto it.

 

[dismal]

What's really impressive is we have so many experts in carriage contract law, all of whom apparently are up-to-date on the legal precedents in the area.

I am only left to question why, when such knowledge is so widespread and plentiful, United did not avail itself of this legal expertise before it set out its policies for these sports of situations.

 

[RavenSky]

But it's not a mistake because a lot of businesses have models where they overbook...

Let's stop right there. The flight was NOT "over-booked". All of the passengers were on board and in their seats. There were no leftover paid passengers waiting at the gate.

This was United Airlines discovering too late that they needed to move a flight crew for reasons unknown. That is NOT the same as "overbooking" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of your less-than-expert dissertation.

- - - Updated - - -

The mistake was not overbooking.

The mistake was over boarding.

One was certainly thrown overboard hence overboarded.

cr:jq

 

[ronburgundy]

Note that while this flight wasn't "overbooked", the issue of overbooking is still relevant to the larger problem and the solution to overbooking could be the same as the solution to these scenarios.

Overbooking means that there are more tickets available for sale, which will lower prices.

Which means that banning the practice of overbooking will increase ticket prices.

So, what is a viable alternative that prevents anyone from being bumped against their will?

The obvious solution is essentially have a kind of a reverse auction where some initial offer is made and they keep raising it until they have enough takers. Objections to this are that everyone will just hold out for more $, but that isn't true. The longer you wait, the greater the chance someone else takes the offer before you. And it doesn't require that all passengers get the same amount. If one person says yes to $800 but the airline still needs another seat, they might have to up the $ to $1000 to get a second taker. That doesn't mean the first person gets the extra $200 also. They chose to take less in exchange for avoiding the risking losing the chance to get anything. Their transaction is over and their ticket canceled before addition offers are made.

Occasionally, they will wind up having to pay out a lot, but often much less. And all that matters to the airline is that the net profits are still higher with overbooking and paying out bumped passengers than if they just stop overbooking completely.

Another factor is that overbooking is mostly profitable because some passengers who buy refundable tickets cancel, thus allowing them to still have a fully sold flight. The gross unfairness is when people who are not allowed to cancel and get any refund can have their ticket cancelled by the airline, especially when the overbooking was caused by too many refundable tickets were sold to other people. So, maybe the airlines should create a new type of "refundable" ticket where it also means those tickets are the first to get bumped. They would likely cost more than non-refundable but less than the current refundable tickets because part of the "cost" you pay to be able to cancel is that the airline can bump you if needed.

 

[KeepTalking]

What's really impressive is we have so many experts in carriage contract law, all of whom apparently are up-to-date on the legal precedents in the area.

It's not nearly as impressive as your ability to ignore the links to expert opinions provided by posters who are using those opinions to bolster their arguments.

 

[RavenSky]

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

There is zero evidence that he ever became "unruly" and the airline has retracted that claim in the face of multiple videos taken by other passengers proving it wasn't factual.

 

[RavenSky]

What's really impressive is we have so many experts in carriage contract law, all of whom apparently are up-to-date on the legal precedents in the area.

It's not nearly as impressive as your ability to ignore the links to expert opinions provided by posters who are using those opinions to bolster their arguments.

^^^ what KeepTalking said

 

[TSwizzle]

Note that while this flight wasn't "overbooked", the issue of overbooking is still relevant to the larger problem and the solution to overbooking could be the same as the solution to these scenarios.

Overbooking means that there are more tickets available for sale, which will lower prices.

Which means that banning the practice of overbooking will increase ticket prices.

I'm not convinced overbooking does mean lower prices. I think it means increased profits. But for the most part, it seems overbooking isn't too much of a problem as it doesn't seem to cause too many people to be actually bumped off a flight but I don't know what the exact numbers are. But in my view, customer service from airlines is pretty shit these days.

 

[ksen]

They needed 4 seats, so at $1500 that's $6K for the four of them and at $300 a ticket they would be losing 20 seats of revenue. At same point you do have to say that we aren't going to lose all of our revenue just to to make one person happy.

If that's the cost of doing business, then that's the cost of doing business. United was apparently unaware a half hour earlier that they would need these four seats for their crew so that they could make arrangements to bump passengers for them prior to boarding. That was a logistics error on their part and it's incumbent on them to pay whatever costs are necessary to correct their error. If that means increasing the bribe they need to pay in order to get someone to get off the plane, then so be it.

But Tom, cash is supposed to only flow into a corporation and never out of it...unless it's to executives and shareholders.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[ronburgundy]

Note that while this flight wasn't "overbooked", the issue of overbooking is still relevant to the larger problem and the solution to overbooking could be the same as the solution to these scenarios.

Overbooking means that there are more tickets available for sale, which will lower prices.

Which means that banning the practice of overbooking will increase ticket prices.

I'm not convinced overbooking does mean lower prices. I think it means increased profits. But for the most part, it seems overbooking isn't too much of a problem as it doesn't seem to cause too many people to be actually bumped off a flight but I don't know what the exact numbers are. But in my view, customer service from airlines is pretty shit these days.

The fact that most of the largest corporations are run by immoral greedy bastards doesn't negate basic realities of supply and demand. Of course overbooking is done to increase profits, but clearly the number of tickets available on various airlines for a given route will impact how much an airline can charge. IF AA has zero tickets left for a given route on a given day, then United can charge more for that route. However, if AA overbooks their flights for that route, then they will have tickets for sale and United will have competition that limits what they can get for their tickets.

Customer service sucks because of a lack of competition. Eliminating overbooking will only reduce supply and thus competition. A major reason for the lack of competition is just the pragmatic nature of the service being sold requires so much infrastructure, and safety requires government regulations and very finite limits on the number of airports, their size, and the number of planes in the air.
That gives lager airlines such a huge advantage. One could argue this is why free-market mechanism simply cannot apply in the same way, and justify more government intervention, such as legal limits on the size of any operating airline to make room for additional airlines and ensure more competition.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's really impressive is we have so many experts in carriage contract law, all of whom apparently are up-to-date on the legal precedents in the area.

I am only left to question why, when such knowledge is so widespread and plentiful, United did not avail itself of this legal expertise before it set out its policies for these sports of situations.

Well, it did. It's policies appear to cover how to handle this type of situation. What seems to be lacking is the training of its employees on how to follow the company's policies.

 

[TSwizzle]

The fact that most of the largest corporations are run by immoral greedy bastards doesn't negate basic realities of supply and demand. Of course overbooking is done to increase profits, but clearly the number of tickets available on various airlines for a given route will impact how much an airline can charge. IF AA has zero tickets left for a given route on a given day, then United can charge more for that route. However, if AA overbooks their flights for that route, then they will have tickets for sale and United will have competition that limits what they can get for their tickets.

There are a shit load of shenanigans going on with ticket prices from the airlines. None of it is for the benefit of the consumer.

Customer service sucks because of a lack of competition.

Among other things.

 

[jonatha]

The fine print is the Contract of Carriage and it doesn't define "boarding" in its definitions sections. That means that in a court of law the ordinary meaning rule will be in play, and that means once you are in your seat you have boarded. United is going to lose big on this.

I doubt United will contest Mr Dao's demands and it will be settled out of court. As for the thugs that man handled Mr Dao off the plane, I hope they get some punishment.

United (or more likely its insurance carrier) will have to contest his demands, if only to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders.

They may not contest them very vigorously...

 

[LordKiran]

And that is relevant because?

Maybe #2, but that's assuming facts we don't know that they could have made it in time.

Someone in this thread posted a link to a McClacthey report that said there were at least 3 options on UA or other airlines that would have gotten the crew to its destination on time.

Or the other option was to cancel the flight, would have been less costly.

Not less costly than the first 2.

Since it sounded like the 4 crew were required to be at the other airport, or face fines it is much better to put them on your flight which you can control then putting them on a different airlines which you can't control. since they couldn't get them on those other flights does sound like those flights would be full and then it would up to one of the other airlines to bump passengers for a competitor.

They needed 4 seats, so at $1500 that's $6K for the four of them and at $300 a ticket they would be losing 20 seats of revenue. At same point you do have to say that we aren't going to lose all of our revenue just to to make one person happy.

So can you explain to me why the business' mismanagement should be made the customer's problem? This goes beyond what is legal and what is not. This comes down to basic principles of service and customer care. If a resturaunt decided to kick you and your party out so they could seat a more 'important' guest, they might have every right to do that, but it still speaks to how poorly that business regards you and your custom and the poor business ethic of the proprietor. Just because a business has the legal wherewithal to take an action doesn't make it okay, and this is all assuming that United was in the legal right to begin with, which remains to be seen.

It's not mismanagement, and this issue deals with all businesses to some degree. We've all gone to a restaurant or a business where they didn't have enough resources to cover what you wanted, whether it's the time you got into your appointment, the ingredients to make your food, the staff to serve it, etc.[1] I've sat in doctors offices for hours because they overbooked. What people don't like is that there is fine print to everything and don't want to take the time to read it all and with airline travel there is no guarantee that you will get to your destination on time whether its weather, mechanical failures, crew issues, plane type, etc. If you want to be guaranteed to make it to someone in the time you want, you drive yourself. You trade convenience for uncertainty.[2]

But also knowing the legal right would also come down to the security firm that was called in. Are the police who should know the rules, or just a private security, etc. Has there been Supreme Court cases where this issue has appeared and the airlines know for sure where it stands?

- - - Updated - - -

That is the very successful business model of Health Clubs. Ever tried to workout at one in January or February?

Regardless, I would need to see the numbers. I thought I read about 20,000 to 40,000 seats were bumped on airlines in the past year, which given the total number flying annually, isn't that high. And I think the $850 to $1350 depending on the delay time for a bumped passenger is meant to cover additional costs, not just the flight.

The airliners are trying to put buns in every seat, so I can understand their purpose. If flights were always selling out and being overbooked and people were always being bumped on a majority of flights, the system would need an overhaul, but it doesn't sound like that is the case. But if the numbers show otherwise, I'm open to seeing them.

- - - Updated - - -

The practice of airlines overbooking to maximize their profits should be criminal. Sure, mistakes can happen.. in that case, FULL compensation would be expected (full retail cost of ticket plus every penny of expense, such as cost of hotel, cost of time off from work... every penny).

Selling a seat on a plane that does not exist is (should be) fraud. In what other industry is it acceptable to solicit and take payments for services that have no intention or possibility to provide (such as selling 500 seats on a 450 passenger plane)?

The airlines are crooks. In these instances where people don't show up, they have charged twice for the same seat. And it's bullshit to suggest that this is to keep consumer costs down, it's to keep share holder dividends up.

Yet when Charter Schools do this, that is good business. /derail

Numbers game, ey? How many times is it ok for a restaurant to charge you for a meal that they give to the cook to eat? How often have you accepted that as perfectly acceptable?

I said I need to see the numbers. How many no-shows get their money back verses how many no-shows means a seat is paid for twice? I can't say one way or the other.

Professional services routinely charge for your missed appointment, but when is the reverse true? When does a doctors office pay for a appointment time they cancel?

1. Not relevant to the given scenario. You were seated, maybe already served, and are now being told to get up and leave because another customer they had forgotten about is deemed "More important or valuable." Than you. Not acceptable.

2. What People care about is not being forcibly removed from a plane seat they are entitled to because a company had a problem that they had nothing to do with and care nothing about. But you were close.

A company is only as good as its word.