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

[Artemus]

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.

First, it is not my argument. It is the argument of both a professor of law on personal rights and an attorney who specializes in aviation law. Second, the section dealing with denied boarding is entirely irrelevant because he was not denied boarding. So... Third, as you say, he is not entitled to denied-boarding compensation. But....Fourth, he is entitled to far, far more compensation than that due to the violation of his civil rights. And look for him to collect that compensation, probably in an out-of-court settlement.

Actually, I have to reconsider. After they had him beaten up and dragged off the plane they did deny him boarding. So he actually does deserve involuntary denied boarding compensation on top of the very large civil-rights-violation settlement he is going to received.

 

[Malintent]

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

There is no legal distinction between ejecting person from a flight because the airline just wants to, they need the seat for another customer, or just want to have an empty seat, or have the seat for an employee. The overbooking practice is at the core of this problem, but is not the whole issue. The relevant issue is about providing a service that has already been paid for. Further, as we are talking about a mode of transportation, one would be justified in calling this a piece of infrastructure with the associated government guarantees on availability and regulations that protect the rights of those that wish to move freely about the country.

The only distinction is if the passenger is ejected for violating safety regulations, which can be as simple as not listening to the flight attendant.

- - - Updated - - -

First, it is not my argument. It is the argument of both a professor of law on personal rights and an attorney who specializes in aviation law. Second, the section dealing with denied boarding is entirely irrelevant because he was not denied boarding. So... Third, as you say, he is not entitled to denied-boarding compensation. But....Fourth, he is entitled to far, far more compensation than that due to the violation of his civil rights. And look for him to collect that compensation, probably in an out-of-court settlement.

Actually, I have to reconsider. After they had him beaten up and dragged off the plane they did deny him boarding. So he actually does deserve involuntary denied boarding compensation on top of the very large civil-rights-violation settlement he is going to received.

I would not be surprised to see a "game changing" punitive damage award in the 9 figure range, followed by a slew of class action lawsuits seeking the same from every airline that has ever denied boarding to anyone.

 

[Axulus]

I know this thread is really long and this was probably already mentioned, but UA should have payed whatever price was necessary to get four people to voluntarily give up their seats in exchange for cash/incentives. Keep upping the price until you finally get enough people to agree. It doesn't really seem that difficult to me.

 

[Malintent]

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.

because they have been getting away with it for decades.

Another great example of how evil the airlines are and able to get away with it is how they measure the cost of maintenance. They research the average cost of a lawsuit for each passenger they accidently kill in an accident, and then decide how much they will spend on maintenance.
Their belief is that if it only costs 10 million dollars to pay off a wrongful death lawsuit, then there is no reason to spend 100 million dollars replacing some part across their fleet that should be replaced.

It is a basic risk management approach to cost management.... except in the world of good human beings doing normal business, human life is priceless. In the world of the airline industry, the price of a human life is calculated into their approach.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I know this thread is really long and this was probably already mentioned, but UA should have payed whatever price was necessary to get four people to voluntarily give up their seats in exchange for cash/incentives. Keep upping the price until you finally get enough people to agree. It doesn't really seem that difficult to me.

Well, that's only because you're not an idiot. The same can't be said for the people who work for United Airlines ... and for the Chicago Airport Police. Really, this was a perfect storm of incompetent morons all working together in order to achieve the worst possible solution.

 

[Malintent]

I know this thread is really long and this was probably already mentioned, but UA should have payed whatever price was necessary to get four people to voluntarily give up their seats in exchange for cash/incentives. Keep upping the price until you finally get enough people to agree. It doesn't really seem that difficult to me.

Well, that's only because you're not an idiot. The same can't be said for the people who work for United Airlines ... and for the Chicago Airport Police. Really, this was a perfect storm of incompetent morons all working together in order to achieve the worst possible solution.

yup, basically.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I know this thread is really long and this was probably already mentioned, but UA should have payed whatever price was necessary to get four people to voluntarily give up their seats in exchange for cash/incentives. Keep upping the price until you finally get enough people to agree. It doesn't really seem that difficult to me.

Well, that's only because you're not an idiot. The same can't be said for the people who work for United Airlines ... and for the Chicago Airport Police. Really, this was a perfect storm of incompetent morons all working together in order to achieve the worst possible solution.

Not quite. Because there are several issues with that. It is not obvious that the reasonable person whose job normally makes boarding process end when the door closes. The announcement is, "We have completed boarding, and the doors are closing" The ticket says that a passenger purchases says you can be denied boarding and compensated for it. So the employees call the police to remove the person and the security has a reasonable belief that the person can be removed. So then what does the law say when police officers have a reasonable belief to perform an action and the person does not listen to authorities?

 

[beero1000]

Well, that's only because you're not an idiot. The same can't be said for the people who work for United Airlines ... and for the Chicago Airport Police. Really, this was a perfect storm of incompetent morons all working together in order to achieve the worst possible solution.

Not quite. Because there are several issues with that. It is not obvious that the reasonable person whose job normally makes boarding process end when the door closes. The announcement is, "We have completed boarding, and the doors are closing" The ticket says that a passenger purchases says you can be denied boarding and compensated for it. So the employees call the police to remove the person and the security has a reasonable belief that the person can be removed. So then what does the law say when police officers have a reasonable belief to perform an action and the person does not listen to authorities?

That the cops can break the person's nose, give him a concussion, and knock out his teeth? Is that what the law says? I know it's something like that...

 

[Will Wiley]

They shouldn't have ejected him they should have dropped a scorpion on him

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/13/united-airlines-scorpion-stings-passenger

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not obvious that the reasonable person whose job normally makes boarding process end when the door closes. The announcement is, "We have completed boarding, and the doors are closing" The ticket says that a passenger purchases says you can be denied boarding and compensated for it. So the employees call the police to remove the person and the security has a reasonable belief that the person can be removed.

So, you're saying the passenger hasn't been allowed to board until the entire boarding process has been completed? Like Schrödinger's passenger, the guy in his assigned seat, with his luggage stowed and his seatbelt on is still in a state of boarding until the flight attendant announces that he's boarded?

So, if I show a picture of a row of three people, in their airplane seats, only an idiot would say 'they've boarded,' a reasonable person would say 'I don't know, what is the state of the door?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

The plane was still boarding.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

 

[J842P]

It is not obvious that the reasonable person whose job normally makes boarding process end when the door closes. The announcement is, "We have completed boarding, and the doors are closing" The ticket says that a passenger purchases says you can be denied boarding and compensated for it. So the employees call the police to remove the person and the security has a reasonable belief that the person can be removed.

So, you're saying the passenger hasn't been allowed to board until the entire boarding process has been completed? Like Schrödinger's passenger, the guy in his assigned seat, with his luggage stowed and his seatbelt on is still in a state of boarding until the flight attendant announces that he's boarded?

So, if I show a picture of a row of three people, in their airplane seats, only an idiot would say 'they've boarded,' a reasonable person would say 'I don't know, what is the state of the door?

Well, to be fair legally it might be that way, I don't know. Legal definitions are necessarily coherent with "what reasonable people would agree on."

 

[RavenSky]

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

The plane was still boarding.

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About that...

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article144251244.html

...according to a McClatchy review of the airline’s service schedule, the carrier could have put that crew on as many as three other United flights to Kentucky from Chicago the same evening. Or two flights on other airlines.

Whoever wrote that piece of crap has no understanding of crew rest rules as they considered the taxi option.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. Think of the last time you were on a plane. The flight attendants talk about the "boarding process". It's not a discrete act, it's from when they start letting passengers on until the door is closed and the pilots do their final calculations. (And, yes, they do weight and balance calculations after everyone is on board. 99% of the time the numbers come out fine and you're not aware of it. I've been on a flight where they didn't--and we left more than half an hour late after they finally resolved the problem by putting a weight in our rear cargo hold.)

 

[Artemus]

It is not obvious that the reasonable person whose job normally makes boarding process end when the door closes. The announcement is, "We have completed boarding, and the doors are closing" The ticket says that a passenger purchases says you can be denied boarding and compensated for it. So the employees call the police to remove the person and the security has a reasonable belief that the person can be removed.

So, you're saying the passenger hasn't been allowed to board until the entire boarding process has been completed? Like Schrödinger's passenger, the guy in his assigned seat, with his luggage stowed and his seatbelt on is still in a state of boarding until the flight attendant announces that he's boarded?

So, if I show a picture of a row of three people, in their airplane seats, only an idiot would say 'they've boarded,' a reasonable person would say 'I don't know, what is the state of the door?

From the letter that United CEO Oscar Munzo sent to employees the day after the incident (emphasis mine):

On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.

The claim that no one is boarded until the door is closed or the plane backs out of the gate is total bullshit fabricated by apologists trying to defend the reprehensible behavior of United Airlines and the police who dragged the guy out. That has been made abundantly clear by personal-rights law professors, aviation-law attorneys, and even the CEO of the company itself. At this point it is just willful ignorance to claim otherwise.

 

[Ford]

About that...

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article144251244.html

Whoever wrote that piece of crap has no understanding of crew rest rules as they considered the taxi option.

What was the time of the flight out of Louisville that the crew were needed upon?

 

[J842P]

So, you're saying the passenger hasn't been allowed to board until the entire boarding process has been completed? Like Schrödinger's passenger, the guy in his assigned seat, with his luggage stowed and his seatbelt on is still in a state of boarding until the flight attendant announces that he's boarded?

So, if I show a picture of a row of three people, in their airplane seats, only an idiot would say 'they've boarded,' a reasonable person would say 'I don't know, what is the state of the door?

From the letter that United CEO Oscar Munzo sent to employees the day after the incident (emphasis mine):

On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.

The claim that no one is boarded until the door is closed or the plane backs out of the gate is total bullshit fabricated by apologists trying to defend the reprehensible behavior of United Airlines and the police who dragged the guy out. That has been made abundantly clear by personal-rights law professors, aviation-law attorneys, and even the CEO of the company itself. At this point it is just willful ignorance to claim otherwise.

More like an inherently servile attitude coupled with authoritarian tendencies rather than willful ignorance, if you ask me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only a person with no business sense thinks an airline needs to open up bidding on a seat that it owns.

Guy could sit there until they offered him millions, right?

Actually, they did have bidding. No takers at what no doubt was the maximum the front line people were allowed to offer.


Incidentally, for those who think they should have done something else with their crew--what if they weren't given a choice? In a discussion of this incident elsewhere a gate agent spoke up. He had to kick an elite passenger out of first class into economy and the guy in that seat off the plane. The problem: An air marshal had been booked into that seat a couple of minutes earlier.

 

[Artemus]

Incidentally, for those who think they should have done something else with their crew--what if they weren't given a choice? In a discussion of this incident elsewhere a gate agent spoke up. He had to kick an elite passenger out of first class into economy and the guy in that seat off the plane. The problem: An air marshal had been booked into that seat a couple of minutes earlier.

I'm sure that the gate agents were given no choice. The United CEO said as much in his letter the next day. And that is why United Airlines the company is in such deep, deep shit and not just a couple rogue gate agents and port cops.