United passenger forcibly removed from plane for not giving up seat

[JTsyo]

After he was told to exit the plane, this was probably one of the better outcomes for him. He got to take the flight and now has a nice payout potential. If the cops just took him off the plane without brutality, he would probably be facing some kind of charges.

 

[rh71]

Maybe someone already mentioned it (EDIT>> yup it was), and I don't know how they "randomly" selected this couple, but perhaps they were "chosen" because asians typically don't stand up to authorities so they were an easy mark, so United thought. His last name wasn't Smith I'm sure.

 

[Skel]

Except he has a history of being confrontational.

Confused on what you're trying to say.. that he deserved what happened because he has a history of being confrontational?

 

[purbeast0]

Confused on what you're trying to say.. that he deserved what happened because he has a history of being confrontational?

I'm not sure what he was talking about either - it has zero to do with the airplane incident.

 

[Darwin333]

According yo eye witnesses on the plane another passenger offered to get off for $1,600, the crew laughed in their faces and said $800 was the max. Total disaster that could have been avoided if united used some common sense.

Damn, I bet they are kicking themselves in the ass right now. This entire fiasco could have been prevented for an extra $3,200...

 

[Exterous]

Why couldn't the crew be put on another flight? Like one going to the same destination on another airline? Seems it would probably be cheaper than $800 too if it was domestic.

Some people on FT have mentioned that the only other airline option was AA which was scheduled to depart within a few minutes of this plane's original departure time. By the time they were soliciting volunteers it was likely no longer an option. Crew have transportation methods noted in their contracts so taxi and uber are out, even before considering the crew rest doesn't start until they arrive at the destination airport (so they likely would not have qualified to fly the plane in the morning)

See, I'm giving them credit for maybe having a shred of common sense. Is it entirely out of the question that multiple people could have been kicked off based on whatever criteria they use to determine who gets fucked? And is it entirely out of the question that whoever made the decision followed some thought process like "pregnant woman, can't touch her. Black family, looks racist if we do them, old Chinese guy, perfect, he's probably meek and conditioned to obey oppressive authority"? If somebody told me I had to toss a person off a plane I'd go for the one least likely to scream, fight and sue, wouldn't you? I'm not saying that's exactly how he was chosen, but I'm not willing to believe that didn't have at least something to do with it.

From what I have read there was an on plane announcement that if there were no takers the computer would notify them of the appropriate people to deplane. I think its extremely unlikely that they would not follow this procedure. Per DOT if you are IDB'd you are entitled to a written form saying you were IDB'd, the reasons behind it and how you were selected. I believe you can even request the list of people ranked by the selection criteria. It happens often enough that frequent fliers know the process and ask for this information - its part of the process to get your compensation. I doubt they would take the personal risk of randomly selecting a passenger and having them turn out to be a 1K compared to letting the established process of having the computer do it (Which would generally absolve them of any wrong doing)

 

[Darwin333]

Wow I actually just watched the video, this is brutal. They arn't kidding when they say assaulted. The guy was bleeding and everything and was dragged out barley conscious after being slammed into the arm rest. Everybody involved should be in jail for assault or accessory to the crime (such as whoever ordered it to take place). If a passenger assaulted a flight attendant or other crew in that same way it would probably be ruled as terrorism or at very least involve legal action. But because it's authorities that did it then of course they just get a paid vacation. So sick of this double standard.

Given they were offering money I'm surprised out of a whole plane nobody was able to take the $800, though that's not really that much when you think about it, because a typical hotel is going to run you about $200, maybe even $300 being last minute and in a big city. Then you still need to buy another ticket and hope there is a seat the next day, that can easily hit a couple hundred there too.

But when people need to be at work the next day, they NEED to get home, there's no if or but about it. Though when traveling by plane it's probably a good idea to plan to be off a few extra days in case if delays etc.

I am pretty sure they get you on the next available plane for free and if it won't be until the next day they give you a hotel voucher.

 

[Ns1]

 

[MrDudeMan]

Well, the point is, United caused this themselves. The guy was a paid customer and was minding his own business, as he was let on the plane as a paid customer. And then they told him he won the lottery for being kicked off the plane, just because.

He then refused, saying he had to get home, so he could see his patients the next day. He did not care that they offered him $800.

Then they said, they'll forcibly remove him from the plane... which they did, and then some, bashing his head in the process.

Basically, he was a normal customer, until United screwed him over and threatened to throw him off the plane just because of their own issues.

I understand all of that. As I said, I've literally been in the exact same situation. I had a meeting the following morning in Phoenix and I missed it because I had to get off of the plane. Shit happens and it sucks when it does, but fighting about it is never going to make the outcome better. It helps to be informed in this case because obviously the vast majority of people aren't at all. You have no right to a specific seat on a specific aircraft. He was a normal paying customer who agreed to the aforementioned terms when he bought his ticket. He just didn't like that the terms were exercised, which isn't United's fault in the way you are suggesting. They followed the law and their own terms and conditions. Maybe it could have been handled better, but it's hard to know because this kind of stuff almost never happens. People get off of the plane just like the first three people did and just like I and everyone else I've ever seen who got picked.

I guarantee none of them were expecting this level of escalation. In my experience, most people change their tone and behavior when the situation starts to escalate such that they'll give in or take the alternate choice to avoid causing a huge scene. Although, that's starting to feel like ancient history because the average person seems to be a lot more pissed off about everything now, so maybe we're all prone to snapping.

 

[Darwin333]

Perhaps when they do force remove people they can take into account which passengers are leaving from their home airport. It's a bit less inconvenient for those to be stuck there as they can at least go back home, than those who are heading back home or in the middle of a connecting flight. Also take into account leisure vs business. So you miss out on Disney World, yeah that seriously blows, but a business guy heading to an important meeting and ends up not making it is going to get fired.

I dunno, my house is an hour from the airport in the best circumstances, two hours+ if it's during rush hour or if there is an accident. My last rescheduled flight was canceled around midnight and my new flight was at 5:30 the next morning. I'd much rather stay in the hotel airport and get some sleep than to go home and have to leave the house in a few hours. Now if the flight isn't going to be for 16 hours or something, yeah I'd much rather be able to go home.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

From what I have read there was an on plane announcement that if there were no takers the computer would notify them of the appropriate people to deplane. I think its extremely unlikely that they would not follow this procedure. Per DOT if you are IDB'd you are entitled to a written form saying you were IDB'd, the reasons behind it and how you were selected. I believe you can even request the list of people ranked by the selection criteria. It happens often enough that frequent fliers know the process and ask for this information - its part of the process to get your compensation. I doubt they would take the personal risk of randomly selecting a passenger and having them turn out to be a 1K compared to letting the established process of having the computer do it (Which would generally absolve them of any wrong doing)

Well then, maybe United should display said list and explain the exact criteria used to rank which passengers were going to get fucked in the ass.

 

[ponyo]

I'm not a lawyer but I thought this comment made sense.

From theuglyguy website article comment section:

From a lawyer:

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about " OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.
   
   
2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
   
   
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

 

[Darwin333]

Something else that I thought of. The flight wasn't technically "overbooked" or oversold, they had crew that they wanted to get somewhere else. Wasn't this flight delayed for two hours already? How had they not figured out that they needed to move this crew and remedied the situation at the gate long before passengers boarded the plane? What it sounds like to me is that the crew was probably going to be on another flight getting them to where they needed to go but that flight was going to be delayed as well so they would have gotten there late.

I can say one thing for sure, I would really really hate to be the person that took that poor guys seat.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Something else that I thought of. The flight wasn't technically "overbooked" or oversold, they had crew that they wanted to get somewhere else. Wasn't this flight delayed for two hours already? How had they not figured out that they needed to move this crew and remedied the situation at the gate long before passengers boarded the plane? What it sounds like to me is that the crew was probably going to be on another flight getting them to where they needed to go but that flight was going to be delayed as well so they would have gotten there late.

I can say one thing for sure, I would really really hate to be the person that took that poor guys seat.

I think it was delayed for two hours after the 'incident' due to needing to freshen up/clean out old dude fluids. I'm assuming that since this flight was delayed, the flight crew that was attempting to board ended up on another plane or didn't make their destination at all.

 

[Skel]

I'm not a lawyer but I thought this comment made sense.

From theuglyguy website article comment section:

From a lawyer:

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about " OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.
   
   
2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
   
   
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

I agree with everything you've said.. but I do want to point out it's been said in quite a few places that 'boarding' is everything before the plane leaves teh runway. Just getting on the plane isn't the definition of boarding, so they could claim that he wasn't boarded yet.. splitting hairs I'm sure, but that's what lawyers do. This guy got boned because the airline wanted to bump it's people in priority.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree with everything you've said.. but I do want to point out it's been said in quite a few places that 'boarding' is everything before the plane leaves teh runway. Just getting on the plane isn't the definition of boarding, so they could claim that he wasn't boarded yet.. splitting hairs I'm sure, but that's what lawyers do. This guy got boned because the airline wanted to bump it's people in priority.

It's outright redefining a word. Any reasonable person would define boarding as walking on the plane, and it could be argued that you're boarded the second you do the ticket hand-off to the gate person (since you are lining up for 'boarding' at that point). No reasonable person would say 'nope, plane is on the runway, but you haven't boarded yet since we're still on the ground'.

 

[manly]

See, I'm giving them credit for maybe having a shred of common sense. Is it entirely out of the question that multiple people could have been kicked off based on whatever criteria they use to determine who gets fucked? And is it entirely out of the question that whoever made the decision followed some thought process like "pregnant woman, can't touch her. Black family, looks racist if we do them, old Chinese guy, perfect, he's probably meek and conditioned to obey oppressive authority"? If somebody told me I had to toss a person off a plane I'd go for the one least likely to scream, fight and sue, wouldn't you? I'm not saying that's exactly how he was chosen, but I'm not willing to believe that didn't have at least something to do with it.

While we can agree that United has shown an utter lack of common sense in their reaction to the assault, DoT rules regulate how passengers get bumped to prevent airline staff from winging it and discriminating.

Unless I'm misreading, what you've described as 'common sense' is racial bias. That's what people in China are assuming led to the assault, and no doubt some Asian Americans and minorities at least wonder if that's the case. Why did United push so hard on this one customer? Is it solely to follow protocol, or because they figured this is perhaps the last guy who'd want to get arrested? If it was a retired 69 year old white woman, would the flight crew have done the same thing?

Obviously they fucked up by overbooking the last flight of the night to that destination, then limiting what they were willing to offer to get any passenger to actually volunteer to stay back. While passengers do get bumped after boarding a plane, experts have stated in news articles that it's still fairly uncommon. The VAST majority of the time, this is handled at the gate.

If I'm setting policy at the airline, I'm certainly excluding seniors 66 and above and all minors (unless their parent is getting bumped and doesn't object to the family taking a deal together).

 

[elitejp]

Like i said earlier, let the passengers handle it. After sitting on the plane for several hours and not being able to take off due to one passenger not leaving the aircraft there wont be any need for security. The passengers will have handled it.

 

[ponyo]

I agree with everything you've said.. but I do want to point out it's been said in quite a few places that 'boarding' is everything before the plane leaves teh runway. Just getting on the plane isn't the definition of boarding, so they could claim that he wasn't boarded yet.. splitting hairs I'm sure, but that's what lawyers do. This guy got boned because the airline wanted to bump it's people in priority.

They clearly violated number 2. So "boarding" definition doesn't really matter.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Obviously they fucked up by overbooking the last flight of the night to that destination

Again, to clarify, this wasn't from United overbooking the flight. The flight was booked normally, to capacity. This was united wanting four of their employees to take that flight so that they could make ANOTHER flight later, and four customers got the boot as a result.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Like i said earlier, let the passengers handle it. After sitting on the plane for several hours and not being able to take off due to one passenger not leaving the aircraft there wont be any need for security. The passengers will have handled it.

Yeah, that's it, just like your other comments. You must be twelve.

 

[ponyo]

Again, to clarify, this wasn't from United overbooking the flight. The flight was booked normally, to capacity. This was united wanting four of their employees to take that flight so that they could make ANOTHER flight later, and four customers got the boot as a result.

Which is illegal because the 4 booted passengers had reserved confirmed seats. The 4 United crew members did not so United violated the rule and illegally placed employees ahead of paid passengers with reserved confirmed seats.

 

[ultimatebob]

I noticed that the social justice warriors on Reddit are really up and arms about this one, and making all kinds of dumb memes about it.

Not that it really matters... if United's flight is $5 less than Delta or American around the same time a week from now, most people will still go with the cheapest option unless they really want the frequent flyer miles from the other airline.

 

[Ns1]

Not that it really matters... if United's flight is $5 less than Delta or American around the same time a week from now, most people will still go with the cheapest option unless they really want the frequent flyer miles from the other airline.

it might not matter to some consumer passengers, but corporate passengers can put a real hurt on United.

 

[manly]

I noticed that the social justice warriors on Reddit are really up and arms about this one, and making all kinds of dumb memes about it.

Not that it really matters... if United's flight is $5 less than Delta or American around the same time a week from now, most people will still go with the cheapest option unless they really want the frequent flyer miles.

For $5? I don't travel much, but I'd vote with my wallet. I don't generally "hold grudges" but I have a long memory.

If you're saying most people don't care or have short memories... well you're probably right.