United drags passenger off the plane because of overbooking.

[LannyPC]

Yes. Actually, that does seem to be the case. But even so- the plane was full. So now they throw paying customers off the plane for their employees? I think that is outrageous!

I agree but, as outrageous as this may seem, I'm guessing that UA felt it was in its best interests to have those four employees in Louisville ASAP and take the loss of the four paying passengers. It's possible that a more lucrative flight from Louisville needed those four employees right away. Or it's possible that without those four employees in Louisville, a particular scheduled flight would not have gotten off the ground and caused a domino effect that would lead to other flights not taking off.

So in the big picture (putting this passenger-dragging incident aside), losing four paying passengers on this one flight was a pittance compared to what the airline would have lost had those four employees not gotten to Louisville ASAP.

 

[Luanne]

It would seem that those employees not getting to where they needed to go would have impacted far more people and other flights than those four impacted customers?

Yep. It would have impacted all of the people on the flights the crew was needed on. And were these four crew members all on the same flight, or on four separate flights? That could have quadrupled the number of people impacted.

 

[WinniWoman]

Many years ago (and I think airlines have gotten more sophisticated about the amount that they overbook now - better computer algorithms) I had a friend take a trip to Hawaii. He deliberately booked his return trip starting Jan. 1 when people were desperate to get back to work. After having exactly the vacation he wanted, he would show up at the airport, volunteer to not take his (and his wife's) scheduled flight, take the money together with a free overnight in a hotel, come back the next day after lounging around, and do the same thing.

By the time four or five days were over, he had paid for his original trip (airline fare and hotels). Bottom line was he had worked the system for a free trip to Hawaii. (He could have stayed a few more days, but having to show up at the airport every day was beginning to get tiresome.)

Wanting to get bumped is all great for people who don't have employers, or major responsibilities at home, but for the majority of people our time is not our own. We maybe take a week off if we are lucky and have to get back to work or to our responsibilities.. We don't have time to get home a couple of days or even a day later. Not to mention many people are not frequent fliers and might not be taking another vacation for a long time, making vouchers useless.

 

[Luanne]

Not sure why everyone is espousing the greatness of Southwest. Realize of the big airlines, they involuntarily bumped more passengers than any of the other three big airlines. They just didn't happen to have this unfortunate incident happen on their plane.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ers-involuntarily-united-isnt-no-1-2017-04-11

Sorry, had trouble reading your chart, too many lines crossing each other.

I fly Southwest quite a lot. I don't remember any announcements of being oversold or seeing people get bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it.

 

[bizaro86]

I agree but, as outrageous as this may seem, I'm guessing that UA felt it was in its best interests to have those four employees in Louisville ASAP and take the loss of the four paying passengers. It's possible that a more lucrative flight from Louisville needed those four employees right away. Or it's possible that without those four employees in Louisville, a particular scheduled flight would not have gotten off the ground and caused a domino effect that would lead to other flights not taking off.

So in the big picture (putting this passenger-dragging incident aside), losing four paying passengers on this one flight was a pittance compared to what the airline would have lost had those four employees not gotten to Louisville ASAP.

In that same big picture, those employees needing to get to Louisville is a function of United''s scheduling, and clearly not the fault of the passengers. Seems like if those other flights were so important, United could have offered moreally than 800 to get them back.

Personally, while it would be too bad for the folks the next day, I don't see why that is the problem of the folks on the first flight. Seems like United made conflicting promises it couldn't keep, and then resorted to force instead of paying for their mistake.

 

[x3 skier]

BTW, Never have been on them but ...........

 

[Chrispee]

 

[rickandcindy23]

My cousin retired from United and told me that she felt bullying was the norm at this company. So sad, I have not flown United in over 10 years and will continue to not fly them.

My sister-in-law says the same thing. She was with United for 31 years. Says a lot about an airline when the retired crew members have such poor opinions of their employer.

My understanding is that $1,000 was offered to anyone willing to give up a seat. Rick and I would have jumped at the chance, if they also offered food and a decent hotel room near the airport (or first class seats on the next plane).

 

[WinniWoman]

Exactly. I'd like to know how many of those bumped people were actually boarded and settled into a seat before getting bumped? How many of those people were randomly selected to be bumped? I'd wager a bet that it would be an extremely small percentage.

Overbooking is a financial incentive for the airlines, so any problems that arise from overbooking should be solved with financial incentives for passengers.

As rare as it is for me to fly, I remember being on a flight that we were all boarded and they came on and asked if anyone would give up their seat.

 

[x3 skier]

As rare as it is for me to fly, I remember being on a flight that we were all boarded and they came on and asked if anyone would give up their seat.

Happened to me several times back in the day. I usually took it if I was on the way back home after a trip by myself.

Cheers

 

[LannyPC]

In that same big picture, those employees needing to get to Louisville is a function of United''s scheduling, and clearly not the fault of the passengers. Seems like if those other flights were so important, United could have offered moreally than 800 to get them back.

Personally, while it would be too bad for the folks the next day, I don't see why that is the problem of the folks on the first flight. Seems like United made conflicting promises it couldn't keep, and then resorted to force instead of paying for their mistake.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing UA for bumping four passengers. Yes, I think UA is to blame for the lack of co-ordination in scheduling. Should those four bumped passengers have to pay the price for UA's mess-up? Definitely not. Should UA have offered much huger incentives for people willing to get bumped? Definitely, especially if UA felt it was vitally important for those four employees to get to Louisville ASAP.

I'm just saying that UA probably did this looking at the big picture.

 

[rickandcindy23]

t would seem that those employees not getting to where they needed to go would have impacted far more people and other flights than those four impacted customers?

So why not offer a higher and higher amount of money to get cheerful volunteers to leave the aircraft? It's nonsensical to cause all of this vitriol.

 

[nightnurse613]

Well, the "cost" to United has already been $250M based on the NYSE (MAY have been other factors). I hate the whole concept of overbooking-can I sell you something I don't have? Although, UA is spinning the cause as they needed to get a crew to another plane so, not really overbook (just poor planning??) They could have chartered a private jet for about $2500!! While no one (?) reads the contract that is referenced on your ticket-there is a contract. I'm pretty sure we will find out this doctor has "other problems" that affected his behavior. Lastly, this behavior is indicative of the "entitlement" culture that permeates our society.

 

[easyrider]

We have been bumped. No big deal. We ended up getting to our destination 3 hours later. They gave us a nice credit for future flights and got us to where we wanted to go.

I just find it odd that this was newsworthy. Maybe if Dr Dao was African American and protesters showed up I might think otherwise.

Bill

 

[Maple_Leaf]

im not terribly sure id be less "upset" to get bumped off a flight before boarding, vs actually being in my seat.

the inconvenience of both situations is the wasted time of me missing the flight, not where my body was located at the time I got bumped.

It's the difference between a civil and a criminal matter. Rule 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION should be treated as a contractual dispute at the ticket counter. Negotiation required, no police necessary, no beating up the customers. Rule 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT can be a criminal matter, e.g. flight safety. I believe the police thought they were responding to a Rule 21 incident when really they were actually called to a Rule 25 situation that was mistakenly criminalised by United personnel.

 

[LisaH]

I had the exact same thought. This guy DID have other options than to play hard ball.so I don't quite buy his "I'm a doctor and I have appointments" excuse. Sounds like a bit of overinflated ego / entitlement factor we're possible contributing factors. But then, none of us were there to know for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wife is also a doctor. She may have appointments scheduled just as many and as important as her husband.

 

[bluehende]

I have seen quite a few interviews today with lawyers that specialize in these things. Of course there is a difference in opinion depending on who the lawyer works for. Generally it is conceded that United violated their own policy. The disclaimer talks about being bumped before boarding. The lawyers conceded that the airline lawyers argue that boarding is until the plane pulls back from the gate, but usually lose. One of the interesting things is that this situation is common enough to have a lot of legal proceedings in place. If this is the case why does United not have better rules and procedures in place. In this thread many viable options have been discussed. Not sure I 100% believe it but one lawyer mentioned that the bar is low for removing a person once boarded but they cannot be removed unless for cause. And no the circular argument of refusing to leave a flight thereby not complying with the flight crew would be a stretch without some evidence to show the customer deserved to be thrown out.

Personally I think overbooking is fine. Airlines make more revenues thus bringing down costs. However if they screw up it is their responsibility to pay for the error. Like many of said 200 more dollars or maybe up to 800 would have probably solved what will become a very expensive problem for them. Most who act indignant will not change their behavior, but some do. It usually is shown that with these PR problems there is an immediate loss of revenue that slowly goes away. Even if it is slight UA will lose a lot of money.

I have another scenario to end the scene without violence. Let the man remain peacefully. Go to the next on the bump list. Upon arrival have the person arrested or sue him if you have a case. Again offering a sweet deal to unlucky number 5 could help. This allays the pacifist in me that believes violence is not the answer.

I must say the funniest thing I have heard on this thread is that if airlines keep going up it will cost them a lot of money as people wait. So a couple hundred people would collude to raise the price without talking in a few minutes.

Also one thing I learned today is that the airline has to compensate you if you are chosen to be bumped and have to inform you of this immediately. The requirements are CASH not vouchers. Generally it is 2X the ticket up to 650 for less than 2 hours and 4X the ticket up to 1300 if over that. My understanding is they will offer vouchers. Do not accept them.

 

[Luanne]

We have been bumped. No big deal. We ended up getting to our destination 3 hours later. They gave us a nice credit for future flights and got us to where we wanted to go.

I just find it odd that this was newsworthy. Maybe if Dr Dao was African American and protesters showed up I might think otherwise.

Bill

Uhhh, it was probably "newsworthy" because he was removed from the airplane bloody and dragged down the aisle.

 

[LannyPC]

Let the price of bumping passengers go as high as it takes. Airlines should do a better job of flying people to their destination when they sold the tickets to the flying public. Nobody forced them to oversell their seats and there should be a price that the airline pays when they are on the wrong end of their yield management calculations.

I think so too. The airline took a risk/gamble that did not pay off so the airline should pay the price, not the passengers. But, as Sue Don J said in an earlier post, if the airline pays the price, sadly it will eventually pass that on to all its customers via higher prices (or possibly lesser service).

 

[klpca]

Not sure why everyone is espousing the greatness of Southwest. Realize of the big airlines, they involuntarily bumped more passengers than any of the other three big airlines. They just didn't happen to have this unfortunate incident happen on their plane.

I've taken a few bumps on SWA. They have always made it worth my while. It's been a few years so I may be fuzzy on the details, but I believe that the last one was a full refund of my ticket, a seat on the next flight, plus $500 credit on Southwest. Both my daughter and I took the compensation and she flew free to and from home/college for the entire school year. They help me, I help them. That's they way it's supposed to work. I have also heard them soliciting volunteers for other flights and they have had no problems increasing the price until they get people to take the offer.

 

[klpca]

I think so too. The airline took a risk/gamble that did not pay off so the airline should pay the price, not the passengers. But, as Sue Don J said in an earlier post, if the airline pays the price, sadly it will eventually pass that on to all its customers via higher prices (or possibly lesser service).

I expect the revenue offset has been factored into prices already. They have everything analyzed, I am sure (says the bean counter )

 

[LannyPC]

eh, folks have extremely short memories and tight pocketbooks.

if there are two flights from A to B....and hundreds of dollars difference in the fares....most folks could care less about this incident and will still buy the cheaper ticket even if its on united.

Agreed. That's my policy. In the possible scenario you mentioned, I'm not going to pay an extra $50 to get from A to B just to pass a message on to a particular airline. I know some here will disagree with me but, hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, standards, and principles.

 

[myoakley]

I am shocked by the number of posts siding with United. No human being, who is not in the process of committing a crime, should be treated in this way, let alone a paying customer. I hope the doctor gets a good lawyer and receives enough compensation to insure a comfortable, maybe even luxurious, retirement.

 

[Luanne]

I am shocked by the number of posts siding with United. No human being, who is not in the process of committing a crime, should be treated in this way, let alone a paying customer. I hope the doctor gets a good lawyer and receives enough compensation to insure a comfortable, maybe even luxurious, retirement.

I'm not sure anyone is actually siding with United. As I posted earlier, there is enough blame to spread around.

 

[LannyPC]

Personally, overbooking does NOT bother me. It is part of an efficient market necessary for almost all successful markets where the item being SOLD has a finite expiration date.

Airline KNOW passengers will NOT show up ... illness, traffic issues or not going. The airlines USE complex models ... using historical, weather conditions, day of the week, holiday patterns and route & destination histories. And any other possible factor or condition people might not show up to fly.

It does not bother me either. But it's a gamble that airlines take. And if more paid passengers show up than there are seats available, then the airline in this case loses the gamble and it should pay, not the customers.