United drags passenger off the plane because of overbooking.

[TUGBrian]

Couldn't they have at least lifted the arm rests in the row he was sitting? It seems that pulling him over them is what led to the injury. It would have also been a lot easier to remove him had the arm rests not been lowered.

id say that him refusing to get up and forcing 3 grown men to grab him and pull him out of a window seat on a crowded airline aisle is what led to the injury.

 

[TUGBrian]

Also, calling someone to use force seems morally the same to me as using it. While the security team is responsible for any excessive force used, I doubt the UA employees expected security to ask nicely and then leave if that didn't work. UA directed the action to have him removed, in a way that appears contrary to their contract for carriage to me.

well yea, people are certainly expected to listen and follow the instructions of the gate and flight crew...as 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all passengers who fly do...and those who dont can deal with airport security.

what are there, 2 million or so passengers that board aircraft every single day, a few hundred of which are bumped off a flight every day...and a minuscule fraction of those refuse to give up their seat no matter what.

its also been reported by more than one outlet that the guy become more and more belligerent as the requests for him to give up his seat went on.

Heck pilots have thrown people off planes for far less than that in the past, much less getting lippy with the flight crew just trying to get the plane out of the gate. again id imagine that there is simply a policy in place for uncooperative passengers and part of that policy is to simply contact airport police to handle a situation that escalates.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I can agree with you and the airlines about asking for volunteers and offering money but then it makes it a class system. That is not something that is popular in 2017.

It does not seem fair to the ones who highly value $800 as more times then not they will want to be bumped even if they are inconvienced by it.

Why is it not fair to to give a resource to those to whom it has the most value?

Let me give a specific example.

Some years ago when I was working in California, during one of the 1980s droughts, I had a client in the Silicon Valley who was facing a mandatory cutback in water supply. My client was faced with the possibility of shutting down operations. Their net revenue from operations was on the order of $200,000 per day, with a workforce of about 100 people.

Meanwhile, there was water available to meet their needs, but the water was associated with agricultural water rights in San Joaquin River delta near Stockton. The growers who had those water rights would net ~$50,000 for the entire year from using that water. In what world does it make sense to put that water to use to produce $50,000 of profit to one individual while putting 100 people out of work and causing millions of dollars of disruption to a business? Would it not be better to simply have my client give $100k to the grower and let my client continue uninterrupted operations? But, no, that was not allowed because it would be classist to allow the simple, starving grower to sell his water (at a 200% profit, without even considering the fact that he wouldn't have to also spend time tending to his crops) to a capitalist industrialist.

The world where that doesn't make sense is a simplistic world that says the grower is part of a deserving protected class and my semiconductor client is a greedy technologist with an insatiable demand for water.

******

The simple fact is that at a given point in space and time, time is more valuable to some people than to others. When I was a graduate student in 1974, my time was less valuable than the time of many business people. So I, and a number of my acquaintances, helped pay for graduate school by refilling cars with gasoline. At that time, it often took two or three hours of standing in line to refill a gas tank. So we would arrange with people to take their cars to be filled with gas, spending our time waiting in line instead of their time. I charged $10/hour for my time waiting in line. So filling a 15-gallon gas tank with a 2-hour wait time came to about $50 total. Since my clients' time was typically valued at >$100/hour, this was a clear winner for them and for me.

Eliitist and classist? Perhaps, but I believe that what two consenting adults do without coercion is nobody else's business. It doesn't matter if that activity involves a bedroom or a boardroom. I was better off trading my time for money, and my client's were happy swapping my time for theirs. It was a win-win.

Same thing applies with offering money to give up seats. It's a win-win for the airline and the passenger. The passenger walks away with something that is more valuable than their original ticket. The airline leaves with a passenger load on the plane that is more valuable to them than the original load.

I have a problem with those who would object to a transaction in which both parties leave the transaction having something that is more valuable to each of them than what they started with.

 

[famy27]

I've actually been on a flight where there had to call for volunteers once the plane was boarded. Big surprise, it was a United flight. We were coming home from Orlando, and there was a family of four standing in the aisle with no seats. We were offered compensation and a flight out of Tampa with reimbursement for the transfer costs to Tampa. We decided to take the voluntary bump, as the family seemed like they needed to be on the flight more than we did. I never did find out if they got a fourth volunteer, as we were a family of three giving up our spots. When we got off the plane, they were still trying to round up another volunteer. Here's the fun post-script. The supervisor who arranged our compensation gave us his card and said to send him the receipt for our rental car to Tampa, and he would make sure we got reimbursed. I sent two letters by snail mail, and we never heard a peep back. Sort of makes you feel uninspired to take the next offered bump. Here was a guy who used creativity to free up seats by sending us to a different airport, but it was apparently a flawed system, as we never received our promised compensation.

However all of this shakes out, I am feeling really bad for pretty much every flight attendant and gate agent. This sort of thing becomes a free pass for all sorts of bad behavior. As pointed out, people are IDB'd every day, but now every airline is going to be walking on eggshells. People who are involuntarily bumped will just say, "Nope. Not me. Move on to the next person on the list." It's going to create operational problems for all airlines, because nobody wants to be "like United."

I agree that United really needs to work out their counts to make sure they don't have to kick people off of planes. That's the biggest issue. It's not the bumping. It's when and how it happens. It's got to be some sort of behavioral economics issue. At the gate, I imagine they would have been able to get more volunteers if they'd upped the amount earlier. When you are waiting at the gate, you don't feel like the seat is yours, so you are probably more likely to give up your place on the plane. It's just hypothetical at that point. But once you board and sit, that seat is your real estate. It's your home for the next 90 or 120 minutes. You aren't giving it up unless it's really worth your while.

 

[WalnutBaron]

Famy makes an excellent point. The outcome of all of this is that passengers whose first inclination is going to be to say, "Hell no, I'm not giving up my seat for anything less than $1500--and I want the gate agent to kiss my butt while I take the money" is going to be the new reality. The abhorrent behavior of Dr. Jau will be imitated--and the jobs of the gate agents and flight attendants just got a little bit more difficult.

This entire episode would not have even started had it not been for the arrogance of an airline that grossly oversells its capacity, coupled with the extreme example of a passenger whose belligerence is only exceeded by the belligerence of the airline's CEO in the following hours and days in trying to justify what happened to that passenger. United has been raked over this situation to such a degree that--as I and others on this board have noted--their domestic business will be affected, and not just in the short term. This will have "legs" long into 2017 and beyond. It's actually quite reminiscent of the Wells Fargo fiasco, which made the front page of the Wall Street Journal again today, nearly a year after the first headlines broke on the story. When a huge corporation publicly displays such a complete disdain for its own customers, those customers vote with their feet and their pocketbooks--and United's shareholders are not going to like the outcome.

 

[LannyPC]

If they sell passage, they need to provide passage or face the consequences for breach of contract.

Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.

That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution. When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes. Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up. Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.

As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.

 

[LannyPC]

FYI, the force was applied by airport security, not the airline.

Bingo! Yet the media seems to paint UA as the bad guys with headlines reading "United drags man...". Now people are all over social media calling for a boycott of UA. United is not the only airline that overbooks and then bumps passengers. It happens every day. It's just unfortunate for UA that one of its passengers refused to get off when instructed to and then security had to be called in to remove him.

So if people are going to boycott UA over this incident, then they should boycott all airlines that overbook and then bump people against their wishes.

 

[MuranoJo]

Still hasn't been determined whether the 4 crew had to go to Louisville to catch a flight the next morning OR going home for perhaps a few days off. Still wrong on either account. Shows UAL putting money/operating efficiency ahead of customers (excellent article in Forbes about this).

And this is hitting the nail on the head for me. They may have had every legal 'right,' but was it really wise in the long run? Of course they could have upped the ante and made it cash instead of a voucher. They would have had takers.
A bit OT, but maybe I'm a bit sensitive about this airline employee favoritism a bit because I was burned by it myself (to a much less degree).
On a long-haul domestic flight, DH & I were upgraded to First Class and they had us wait in the boarding area before boarding.
Well, we got to our nice First-Class seats, and there were two UA employees sitting there who wouldn't respond when we showed them our seating assignments. Needless to say, we were the ones shuttled to seats in coach, downgrades from what we'd originally reserved.

Um, note to self: Read through ALL posts before posting. Sorry, got carried away before I made it through. Oh well, still my sentiments.

 

[TUGBrian]

and more info coming to light in the wee hours!

latest news story said that he and his wife actually DID accept the $800 and got off the plane...but then changed their minds and instead got back on the plane.

not sure if they just ignored the gate agent and walked back on the plane and sat down themselves or what, but that would certainly at least provide an explanation for how it then escalated to having airport security called.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.

That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution. When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes. Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up. Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.

As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.

I've been involved with selling and providing professional services going on 35 years. In virtually all cases, I have a scope of work and terms and conditions that define what is covered contractually. That being said, despite what my actual contract terms are, I will never, never, never leave a client hanging out to dry because the situation doesn't fall within the scope and terms and conditions of my contract. It is bad business for me to do so. I trust that my clients will recognize that I have gone out of my way for them and will assure that I am taken care of for my efforts. If they don't do so, and are willing to exploit my good will, then that is a client that I will readily "outplace", considering myself fortunate to have learned my client's true colors when the stakes are small rather than when the stakes are huge.

In that roundabout way I am saying that it both good business practice and good personal ethical practice to do what is right, not what is contracted. In doing contracts one should be sure that one is adequately managing risk and there is an effective stop-loss to keep things from getting out of hand. But it is good practice to be willing to go beyond the contractual minimum to provide good customer service. The terms of passage on airline ticket provide a means for the airlines to manage risk in the worst-case situations. But if a business wants to receive customer service kudos, the business should focus on what is right and fair, not on minimum contractual obligations. The minimum contractual obligations should only be used as a stopgap when reasonable customer service obligations have not sufficed.

 

[Pens_Fan]

United could have saved themselves a lot of money and aggravation by just putting the four employees in a limo and having them driven the five hours to Louisville.

 

[WinniWoman]

I don't think anyone is siding with UA either. Some are just pointing out that UA is getting unfairly blamed for the rough treatment of this passenger when it was the airport police who brutally dragged him off.

Yes- but who called the airport police?

 

[Beaglemom3]

From newsthump. com. Now for some comic relief,

United Airlines confirms that the beatings will continue until volunteering improves:
http://newsthump.com/2017/04/11/uni...gs-will-continue-until-volunteering-improves/

 

[ace2000]

Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...

Anybody know where I can get some help? Seriously, we all need help folks.

 

[Beaglemom3]

Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...

Anybody know where I can get some help? Seriously, we all need help folks.

I think it's more of identifying with what most view as an unwarranted and/or unjust act(s) by UAL. So, for me, it's reassuring, in an odd way, to know that the ongoing controversy is based on the reaction to the unfairness and overreaction by UAL. Again, YMMV. Thanks.

Something good always comes out of something bad, IMHO.


Edited to correct prior editing errors. It's complicated.

 

[billymach4]

There has been so much back an forth and posturing on this issue for the passenger, and for United.

I really don't care that the airlines have the right to bump you off a flight even if you are sitting in your seat, accepted compensation and then changed your mind or what ever the situation was.

In my mind I paid for a ticket and that ticket needs to be honored. I don't care if any crew member needs to be re positioned. Not my problem. In this age of transportation
the airlines need to figure out how to position their own crews without inconveniencing the flying paying passenger.

Bottom line... United and the local authorities screwed up big time.

 

[Ironwood]

Flying just isn't a pleasant experience anymore......period!

 

[bizaro86]

Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.

That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution. When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes. Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up. Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.

As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.

UA contract for carriage says they have the right to deny boarding for any reason. It doesn't say they have the right to remove you from the plane for any reason. Once he was in that seat, it was contractually his.

The contract does differentiate between denying boarding and removal from the plane in several other circumstances, and ambiguity in contracts is always resolved against whoever drafted it, which is UA in this case.

So UA broke their own contract, and has no moral high ground.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane. Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?

 

[TUGBrian]

guess the comment got lost...but in the news story last night they did up the offer to $1000 (according to onboard passenger/eyewitness reports)...he and his wife accepted and got off the plane...then changed their minds and "got back on".

if they did so after already agreeing to deplane and then actually getting off...and got back on themselves bypassing the gate agent...one can easily see why security would get called.

also, it kinda wipes out the narrative of the "random selection" being passed around...its not exactly random if the guy and his wife willingly took the deal, got off the plane...then changed their minds.

 

[davidvel]

Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane. Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?

Maybe because the gate agent was following the instructions from their employer as to how to do their job so they wouldn't lose it and not be able to feed their kids, and every other time this has happened the passenger complied with authorities and left the plane (probably pissed and making a scene, but not bloody and dragged), when the police/security came on the plane and told them to get off.

And said gate agent never thought this would happen (passenger defying authorities, getting bloody, video shared on social media) when they did what they probably do numerous times every week. And said gate agent was frazzled and frustrated, trying to ferry a crew needed so a flight the next day could happen, and was under a time crunch so didn't take the time to try to find the number for the CEO/ P.R. department to have them try to predict that "this" would happen, when it never happened to this gate agent before.

 

[SueDonJ]

Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane. Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?

Because if upping the ante is the only solution that anybody is comfortable with, and every flyer learns that the airlines'/gate agents' only option is to keep upping the ante, eventually the bump compensation is going to soar into the stratosphere and every single new threshold is going to result in ticket prices soaring ever higher. Taking away the airlines' right to involuntarily remove passengers when things get stupid is not the answer.

 

[WalnutBaron]

CNBC is now reporting that a huge backlash is brewing against United Airlines in China. United accounts for 20% of all flights between the U.S. and China.

On a separate note, and as is unfortunately predictable, Dr. Dao gave his first interview today, saying he "is not doing well" and--when asked what parts of his body are injured--he replied "Everything". Here comes the multi-zillion dollar lawsuit to reward him for his boorish and outlandish behavior, trumped only by United's boorish and outlandish behavior. There is no sympathetic figure in this sorry, sordid affair.

 

[Ken555]

This isn't going to end well for United. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn of more about their wonderful customer service.

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html

Suddenly it had more first-class passengers than it knew what to do with. So it turned to its “How to Screw Over Customers” handbook and determined that the one in higher standing — more miles flown, presumably — gets the seat and the other first-class passenger, even though he’s also a member of the frequent-flier program, gets the boot.

“I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.”

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[lizap]

Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...

Anybody know where I can get some help? Seriously, we all need help folks.

Actually glad to see the public and consumers taking an interest in things like this... people need to closely observe corporate behavior and vote with their wallets... This is not going away anytime soon...