United passenger forcibly removed from plane for not giving up seat

[MrDudeMan]

That's the thing though, what's unreasonable to the laymen is totally reasonable to Walmart (or any other multi-billion dollar business). Those bags ($12-$15 a piece, ~$200 total) were worth so little in the grand scheme of walmart, compared to walmart calling security, having to drag the dude out while screaming for help, getting his face bashed into an ice machine, and being raked across the coals on Twitter for several days. It's just not worth it.

So, looping back to United... If they really decided it was worth so much that they just *had* to have these four employees on this flight instead of driving, private jetting, whatever them to their destination that they just HAD to bump four passengers, they better be willing to fork over the scratch to bribe proper. Otherwise you manhandle your customers, and you end up with a thousand memes on twitter and China's populace blacklisting you.

You're talking about two different things and I never said I disagreed with your second paragraph. We have the same opinion, but I'm voicing the business side because people seem to think the employees involved in this were too stupid to offer another $100 in order to avoid a huge lawsuit. Every single one of them would have offered $100 had they known the outcome of calling security. I don't work for United and I don't even like the airline. I never fly on it if I can help it, so I have no bias here.

Edit: Regarding your first paragraph, I'm not sure why you think those are the only two options. Literally every other time this has occurred (back to United/involuntarily taking seats), no one has been punched in the face or sued. They decided $200 wasn't worth it, but what if the customer was demanding something they weren't willing to give? They most certainly would escort him out and they would call the police if it got to that. I'm not saying this particular passenger did anything to warrant it - we're talking in the hypothetical, which is what is important as far as policy change is concerned. If a customer is reasonable and has been wronged, supporting them is perfectly fine. If an agreement can't be reached, the business has the right to go by the rules and regulations to which they are bound regardless of how you feel about it. It's a PR risk for sure and I never disagreed with that, but my point is they had no clue what would happen as a result. If they truly targeted that guy, my opinion will definitely change, but only in terms of the people involved assuming United's policy isn't to profile easy targets. If that's true, then they truly are assholes, but I really doubt that's the case. I'm open to all facts, though.

 

[Ns1]

This post is nonsensical and proves nothing. I have literally never seen it. I didn't say it hasn't happened, but I've never seen it. If you can't understand the difference between those two, post the gif directed at yourself.

nah, you just came out here guns blazing "I KNOW MORE THAN ALL OF YOU" and then proceeded to show us how much you actually know.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You're talking about two different things and I never said I disagreed with your second paragraph. We have the same opinion, but I'm voicing the business side because people seem to think the employees involved in this were too stupid to offer another $100 in order to avoid a huge lawsuit. Every single one of them would have offered $100 had they known the outcome of calling security. I don't work for United and I don't even like the airline. I never fly on it if I can help it, so I have no bias here.

I guess I would argue that they should have logically thought that if they know their cap is $1350 (or whatever), and they're offering $800 with no biters, try to escalate in that direction (and count on greed winning) rather than escalate in the direction of forced removal via security forces. Even if he hadn't bashed his face into an armrest this still would not have gone quietly over social media. "Senior Doctor drug off plane so United employees could dead-head" sounds about 90% as bad as "Senior Doctor bashed face into armrest and bled everywhere while being drug off plane so United employees could dead-head".

 

[Nashemon]

It will be interesting to see what happens with rental car companies and hotels that routinely overbook as well. Will they change their practices as a result of this?

If they try to pull you out of your bed while you're sleeping, I would say yes. Until that time, no.

 

[MrDudeMan]

nah, you just came out here guns blazing "I KNOW MORE THAN ALL OF YOU" and then proceeded to show us how much you actually know.

Actually I didn't bring that up until a few posts in and I don't think that qualifies as whatever bullshit you're spouting, but it does validate my opinion experientally and anecdotally based on a statistically significant population. I already agreed that just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but not seeing it in thousands of flights over many years makes it very hard to believe. I'm guessing I could google it right now and find an example because a few thousand flights is not representative of every single flight ever, but it certainly is representative of the average and, as the word suggests, most flights will follow what the average flight process/model would forecast. So, there's no reason to believe something exceptional happened here given a lack of evidence, conflicting reports, and, simply put, unusual practices of giving high amounts of cash. United usually gives vouchers and small ones at that, which is crappy.

 

[Pantoot]

If they try to pull you out of your bed while you're sleeping, I would say yes. Until that time, no.

Why would you have to be sleeping?
To go even deeper, I really don't understand the logic of "But he was in his seat!". To me it is akin to "finders keepers".
What if he got up to use the restroom, would they be ok deplaning him then? What if he was in the jetway and he refused to remove himself?

If I booked a hotel room, and they were trying to walk me and I refused, would I be in the right? What about when they call the cops to remove me from the lobby, am I still in the right when I refuse to leave? Hopefully they don't beat the shit out of me when they remove me, but would I still be in the right when I am removed?

None of this changes the massive errors made by aviation police, united, the flight crew, etc, but I think this will have repercussions for more than just the air industry.

 

[manly]

Fair enough - I don't know the term, but it happens whether or not anyone agrees with it. I have never and will never say I think this is all perfectly fine and reasonable, but what United did considering the rules was reasonable. You might think the rules are stupid and I'd probably agree with that. It makes zero difference how right or wrong he was; it only matters what United is allowed to do.

But the term is central to your argument, that millions of Americans have been asked to leave a seat on a plane before and this is the first time somebody stone cold forced law enforcement to get involved. Again yes it does happen, but it's relatively rare.

As far as legality, many lawyers disagree that the airline was in the clear after the passenger was seated; because their 4 employees do not have superior rights to paying customers. Some people in this thread are asserting sloppiness w.r.t. to federal regulations, possibly including racial bias. So I wouldn't agree out of hand that what the airline did was allowed and reasonable in the eyes of the law. Besides most of us here aren't arguing the law, we're arguing how dumb the airline acted over ~ $800. And then their CEO acted WAY DUMBER after the assault.

 

[MrDudeMan]

But the term is central to your argument, that millions of Americans have been asked to leave a seat on a plane before and this is the first time somebody stone cold forced law enforcement to get involved. Again yes it does happen, but it's relatively rare.

As far as legality, many lawyers disagree that the airline was in the clear after the passenger was seated because their 4 employees do not have superior rights to paying customers. Some people in this thread are asserting sloppiness w.r.t. to federal regulations, possibly including racial bias. So I wouldn't agree out of hand that what the airline did was allowed and reasonable in the eyes of the law. Besides most of us here aren't arguing the law, we're arguing how dumb the airline acted over ~ $800. And then their CEO acted WAY DUMBER after the assault.

I'm certainly willing to change my stance when more facts are exposed. You're missing my point still, though. This is not about $800; it's about what companies are willing to do before leveraging their rights as governed by an external entity. That's my main point and what you said doesn't change it really.

 

[Kwatt]

I read that and I know all of that, so I don't know what you're talking about. They have gotten away with getting people off of planes literally every other time this has been a situation for less than $2k in cash (you should read the rules again if you don't understand why that's relevant), so why would they do it this time?

The point you are all missing is how stupid it is to suggest they could have known to simply offer more and more money. I understand the game perfectly well as I have personally flown over 5 million miles on thousands of flights. I've seen this happen and had this happen to me more times than I can remember. If you want to roll the dice, hold out for a little more, but once they cross the threshold set by the FAA, they can kick you off for the minimum amount. I don't even know if we're responding to each other because I feel like I'm repeating the same thing with slightly more detail.

I have seen the rules on bumping before they board.

Have been unable to find the rules/law/guidelines on removing a person after they board. I have read post stating some reasons such as drunk, disruptive, refusing to turn off phones when asked, danger to others ...

Do you have a link to the rules regarding removal after boarding?

Thanks.

.

 

[Pantoot]

Do you have a link to the rules regarding removal after boarding?

I think the argument around that is that boarding isn't complete until the door shuts. I know I have heard the announcement that the "door is shut and boarding is now complete."
I think they will lose that argument though, since the average person would consider themselves boarded once they are on the plane.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I have seen the rules on bumping before they board.

Have been unable to find the rules/law/guidelines on removing a person after they board. I have read post stating some reasons such as drunk, disruptive, refusing to turn off phones when asked, danger to others ...

Do you have a link to the rules regarding removal after boarding?

Thanks.

.

The assumption is boarding counts the entire process until the door closes, which only the following lawsuit will be able to validate. That's the way it is treated right now whether or not it is actually what the law intended. If it is decided that United had no right to remove him after his ass touched his chair, then I will certainly agree that United's actions were not reasonable. Also, you missed the key word, which was cash. They are not obligated to dispense cash.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I think the argument around that is that boarding isn't complete until the door shuts. I know I have heard the announcement that the "door is shut and boarding is now complete."
I think they will lose that argument though, since the average person would consider themselves boarded once they are on the plane.

Yeah, that's what I have always thought and been told. It doesn't mean it's true or right, but it actually does make sense to me because boarding is a process, not a single act. Regarding your last comment, it doesn't really matter if a person is aware of the law when they break it (if it's a law - maybe that doesn't apply here). You can and will be given a ticket for driving 30 mph over the speed limit regardless of if you knew. That's not a direct example, but it's in the ballpark.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Yeah, I don't fault the cops. They were just doing their job. And dumb as the actions by the gate and flight attendants, they were just following corporate orders. The fault is with United CEO and upper management. They enabled the toxic customer no service culture and profits before all mentality.

We need some competition in the domestic airline market. Imagine if foreign airlines from Middle East and Asia were allowed to operate and fly domestic US routes. Prices would be lower and the customer service would be so much better. Imagine having international level service on US domestic flights. One can dream.

Foreign airlines are prohibited from flying domestic flights in the States?

 

[Svnla]

"Would" != "has to"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. This has never happened and $800 is more than reasonable for such a short flight. They aren't obligated to pay anywhere near that mount based on FAA regulations. If they thought getting punched in the face and sued was a possible outcome, I'm completely sure someone would have bumped to $1000 or higher. You guys are fucking morons if you honestly think that's what happened. I have literally seen an entire plane full of people reject a $500 voucher only to have 2 people get involuntarily deboarded. It happens so many times every day that it's hard to believe how many stupid people don't understand the concept. You don't have to like the rules and I'm not even saying I do, but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist. If you don't like it, work to change the system. I'd support that change because I've been stranded by an airline more than once and it blows.

Then why NO ONE took the $800 bait if you think it is reasonable? Oh because there would be no other flight until the next day. Scroll back and read my post with link about the HUGE difference between denying someone onto the plane vs. kicking them out by force after they already boarded.

Now United is losing big from refunding of everyone on that flight, the stock price, then bad publicity, and of course, the big pay out they will have to dole out to Dr. Dao.

You do know the old saying "penny wise but pound foolish", right?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Foreign airlines are prohibited from flying domestic flights in the States?

I think by definition that would make them a domestic airline.

 

[Ns1]

MrDudeMan sounds like Oscar Munoz right now.

If you don't like it, work to change the system.

Clearly Mr. Dao is the hero we didn't know we needed.

NOT ALL HEROES WEAR CAPES.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

MrDudeMan sounds like Oscar Munoz right now.



Clearly Mr. Dao is the hero we didn't know we needed.

NOT ALL HEROES WEAR CAPES.

No, just lawful neutral. They're needed too for a proper D&D campaign.

 

[chowderhead]

The assumption is boarding counts the entire process until the door closes, which only the following lawsuit will be able to validate. That's the way it is treated right now whether or not it is actually what the law intended. If it is decided that United had no right to remove him after his ass touched his chair, then I will certainly agree that United's actions were not reasonable. Also, you missed the key word, which was cash. They are not obligated to dispense cash.

I guess you know more than the CEO of United who said on Monday that all passengers have boarded.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

Here is a good article on why United had no right to eject him from the flight. The flight was not overbooked. He had a confirmed ticket and confirmed seat. The flight was boarded. They should not have tried to use the involuntary denial of boarding to try and eject him.

 

[Pantoot]

I guess you know more than the CEO of United who said on Monday that all passengers have boarded.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

Here is a good article on why United had no right to eject him from the flight. The flight was not overbooked. He had a confirmed ticket and confirmed seat. The flight was boarded. They should not have tried to use the involuntary denial of boarding to try and eject him.

The article makes the argument that the term boarding, since it is not explicitly defined, will go to its plain meaning. I agree, but I think MrDudeMan is right, you had better believe that United's attorneys will create a well written argument that it is defined as when the door closes, and, like he says, the lawsuit will validate whose opinion is correct.

 

[Ns1]

I agree, but I think MrDudeMan is right, you had better believe that United's attorneys will create a well written argument that it is defined as when the door closes, and, like he says, the lawsuit will validate whose opinion is correct.

The customers will validate whose opinion is correct.

 

[who?]

When the business gets too competitive airlines cut capacity to keep profits up. If overseas airlines are allowed in will the airports build more gates to make room?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

When the business gets too competitive airlines cut capacity to keep profits up. If overseas airlines are allowed in will the airports build more gates to make room?

I'd be willing to bet most (larger airports where people want to go) are at runway capacity already, they'd build more gates to accommodate if they could.

 

[Kwatt]

CFR › Title 14 › Chapter II › Subchapter A › Part 250 › Section 250.9 Method of Payment

(b)
Except as provided below, the airline must give each passenger who qualifies for involuntary denied boarding compensation a payment by cash or check for the amount specified above, on the day and at the place the involuntary denied boarding occurs. If the airline arranges alternate transportation for the passenger's convenience that departs before the payment can be made, the payment shall be sent to the passenger within 24 hours. The aircarrier may offer free or discounted transportation in place of the cash payment. In that event, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions on the use of the free or discounted transportation before the passenger decides whether to accept the transportation in lieu of a cash or check payment. The passenger may insist on the cash/check payment or refuse all compensation and bring private legal action.



.

 

[Darwin333]

Again, this is a stupid point. They offer vouchers up to a certain amount because, statistically, they can pay a lot less than $2k in cash to get people to deplane. The rules don't say they have to give up cash and certainly not anywhere close to $2k, so why would they? This has never happened and none of the United employees had any reason to suspect that it would. There have literally been millions of involuntarily deboarded passengers in the last few decades and this is the first time someone has been injured in this manner. As a business owner, I would offer less than United did before invoking the policy as long as I was still in compliance with FAA regulations. You aren't running a business to give away free money, so people who keep saying this are really stupid, honestly. You have the gift of hindsight, which renders your opinion useless.

I highly doubt that there have been millions of deboarded passengers over the last decade since this is almost universally handled at the gate. Hell their own policy and carriage contract doesn't even mention deboarding passengers for oversold flights, it only talks about denying passengers boarding for overbooked or oversold flights. I would be very surprised if there have been thousands of passengers who have been deboarded under similar circumstances. For the record, again, this was not an oversold or overbooked flight.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

CFR › Title 14 › Chapter II › Subchapter A › Part 250 › Section 250.9 Method of Payment

(b)
Except as provided below, the airline must give each passenger who qualifies for involuntary denied boarding compensation a payment by cash or check for the amount specified above, on the day and at the place the involuntary denied boarding occurs. If the airline arranges alternate transportation for the passenger's convenience that departs before the payment can be made, the payment shall be sent to the passenger within 24 hours. The aircarrier may offer free or discounted transportation in place of the cash payment. In that event, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions on the use of the free or discounted transportation before the passenger decides whether to accept the transportation in lieu of a cash or check payment. The passenger may insist on the cash/check payment or refuse all compensation and bring private legal action.



.

Perhaps their lawyers will argue that since the passengers weren't being denied boarding (they were already boarded), they weren't obligated to offer compensation. They were ejected from the plane, which may/may not have rules covering it?

Just thinking of the most underhanded way I could weasel out of a lawsuit.