Updated in #1: United Airlines flight Oversold (?) in Chicago - Violent removal of passenger

[FaithManor]

I don't think anyone should blame the crew that was deadheading. They were just trying to get to their destination. I certainly don't.

 

I blame the airline itself for not having a better policy in place for handling this type of situation. Offer more incentives. Offer cash instead of vouchers if vouchers are rejected. And the airline should be very apologetic and recognize this is a HUGE inconvenience or in some cases a serious problem to leave that plane and miss that flight. In the case of this particular flight the attitude of the United staff in announcing the issue was also a problem and apparently rubbed a lot of passengers the wrong way. If they keep upping the incentives and aren't rude/aggressive about it, eventually surely someone will give up their seat. It may take quite a few more incentives, though, to ask a passenger that has already boarded and been seated to then gather their stuff up again, exit the plane, hope they can get their luggage back in a timely fashion, find a place to stay, notify people they will not make their arrival and in this case work out whatever needs to be worked out for missing all of Monday, whether that be a job or child care or whatever. And if there still is not a single taker there HAS to be a better option than violently removing a passenger who feels strongly that they need to get to their destination.

This.

 

And if the airlines are going to be so flippant about not keeping up their end of the contract - people PAID for the seat for heaven's sake - then they should just be up front about it so people can stop throwing money down a hole.

 

And by the way, I checked it out, those United vouchers can't be stacked. If they offer you $800, it comes as four $200 vouchers which can only be used one at a time so you have to fly with the jerks four times in order to avail yourself of the full $800, and it came with no hotel room or food vouchers so the passenger whose contract was violated by getting kicked out of a seat he/she paid for now has to pay the expenses of being laid over!

 

This airlines operates like mafia!! It is a total shake down, and you are supposed to be grateful they didn't break your legs, and cut off your fingers!!

 

Good grief!

 

Fingers crossed that Delta keeps up the good customer service because I have a flight with them in May.

Edited April 12, 2017 by FaithManor

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't know how to link an article on Facebook, but if you have more questions about the flight crew "deadheading" to their job, please search this article on FB " I know you're mad at United (thoughts from a Pilot wife about flight 3411"

 

This is a great article about the airlines and explaining the position the flight crew is in. I am married to an airline pilot - this was not the flight crew's fault. They are going to their job. They can't simply "drive to the other airport." There Obviously was a reason that crew needed to make it to that destination. - such as the original flight crew being over on hours by a delay or a host of other reasons.

 

Also, tickets are definitely a contract. And in that contract is the ability of airlines to pull that ticket if needed.

 

Please read the article.

Here is the article I believe you were referring to.  I have not yet had a chance to read it but will do so soon.

 

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

[Janeway]

Another thing that really bothers me is that it is not like United had no clue they needed to board 4 flight crew people until after the passengers were boarded. They had to have known for at least the amount of time it took to get the 4 crew members together to do the flight, which means, they had to have known for plenty of time to not board those 4 passengers to begin with.

[Pam in CT]

I understand the fine print.

 

The message United sent was, "when you shell out hundreds of dollars now to buy a 'ticket' later, it says perfectly clearly here in the fine print that you are not actually buying a service to take you from Point A to Point B.

 

Rather, you are buying a strictly best-efforts indication from us.  IF no other higher-fare customer shows up for the seat on your ticket, and IF we have no other business purpose for the seat on your ticket, and IF there are no other profit- or convenience-related issues on our side, up to and including the moment when you've stowed your carry-on and buckled your seatbelt... 

 

... if there's NO OTHER PURPOSE for which we can use that seat that you've already paid for to better advantage TO US...

 

then and only then, will we take you from Point A to Point B."

 

That is the actual message that United actually sent.  Presumably that was not their intent.

 

 

 

I understand the metaphor of "perishable" goods -- the airlines have been making that metaphoric argument since before deregulation in the 1980s -- but the metaphor is flawed, since what overbooking combined with non-refundable fares means is that airlines can and do collect and keep more than one fare for the same seat.  If a nonrefundable ticket customer makes a mistake (arriving at the airport late), the customer pays.  If the airlines make a mistake (selling more seats than they have), the customer still pays.  That is unique to the industry.

 

It's more like a grocer sells a carton of tomatoes, Customer 1 pays for the carton of tomatoes, Customer 1 takes the carton of tomatoes outside the store and then inadvertently leaves it on the sidewalk... and then the grocer sees the carton sitting there, says Oh it's going to waste!!! and plucks it back to sell it again to a second customer.  That too is unique to the industry.

[Lanny]

It would be interesting, to me, to know the type(s) of position(s) the Deadheading employees held. Pilots or Flight Attendants or something else? It would also be interesting to know how the crew (Cockpit and Cabin) who were working that flight feel about what happened,  My guess is that they feel horrible.  It was in no way the fault of the crew who were working that flight (Cockpit and Crew) who just wanted to be ready to go, so they could ask for permission to "Pushback", ASAP, and be on their way.  

 

To get back to the role of Flight Attendants again, which some recent posts I've now read commented on, since I explained that Flight Attendants are ONLY aboard, LEGALLY, for SAFETY reasons.  I suspect now that many passengers have an entirely different view of what their responsibilities are.  If they can serve food and drinks, and they normally do so, that's great, but why they are required to be  aboard the aircraft, legally,  is to help the passengers survive, if there is an in-flight emergency or (worst case) a survivable accident.  

 

Yes, the routine Safety announcements are now done with Videos.  Whether they are done by a Flight Attendant speaking, or a Video, when they interview the people who survived a survivable accident, invariably those passengers had paid absolute attention to the Safety briefing and probably/possibly looked at the card in the back of the seat in front of them, regarding safety.

 

I have a habit, after we reach our seats, when boarding an aircraft, to look forward and backward, and count the number of rows, from our row, to the nearest rows with emergency exits. Ahead of us and behind us.

 

When possible, I try to sit as far forward in the Coach cabin as is possible.  My goal, in the event of an accident, if possible, would be to exit from the aircraft via the same door that I entered the aircraft.  

 

The Recurrent training Flight Attendants receive may include some information about new Meal Service, but the vast majority of it has to do with things that are Safety related, First-Aid, etc. The manual is pretty thick and I do not remember it mentioning Meal/Drink service.  They take exams, after the Recurrent Training classes finish.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Lanny

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't know how to link an article on Facebook, but if you have more questions about the flight crew "deadheading" to their job, please search this article on FB " I know you're mad at United (thoughts from a Pilot wife about flight 3411"

 

This is a great article about the airlines and explaining the position the flight crew is in. I am married to an airline pilot - this was not the flight crew's fault. They are going to their job. They can't simply "drive to the other airport." There Obviously was a reason that crew needed to make it to that destination. - such as the original flight crew being over on hours by a delay or a host of other reasons.

 

Also, tickets are definitely a contract. And in that contract is the ability of airlines to pull that ticket if needed.

 

Please read the article.

 

 

Here is the article I believe you were referring to.  I have not yet had a chance to read it but will do so soon.

 

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

 

 

O.k. I have read the article.  Thank you for pointing it out.  I do think she has some valid points but I also think she is missing some things.

 

1.  I do understand that safety is important and that many of these rules are in place for safety of the crew and passengers.  

 

2.  Yes, once the airport security personnel took over, the crew would have no longer been the ones in charge of the situation.

 

3.  I agree, I don't think it helps anything to vilify all United employees and in fact I think part of the issue is that the policies in place prevent United employees from having enough tools in their tool belt to keep this type of situation from becoming a huge issue.  It really probably wasn't their fault (although the announcer could have been a lot more polite and understanding). 

 

4.  However, in this situation there was NO security/danger issue.  None.  There was no need to call security in the first place.  The airline needed to get a crew to another airport to crew another flight.  The AIRLINE was responsible for finding a way to get the crew to their destination while also taking care of the passengers that were already on board that flight.  They had many non-violent options to work through before resorting to calling airport security and escalating the situation.  If their policies had allowed for and been set up with more options this entire thing could have been prevented.  Offering more incentives, and incentives that can actually be used in a timely fashion, and being polite while doing it would go a long way towards smoothing out the situation.  United did none of that.  They were also apparently NOT terribly polite, at least the announcer asking for volunteers.  In fact, many have mentioned whoever made the announcement was rather pushy and demanding and fairly rude.  And the incentives they offered were hard to use.  They were also asking volunteers to delay their departure by nearly 24 hours.  For some missing a Monday might be a HUGE HUGE issue.  They should have acknowledged that fact.

 

5.  The person writing the article also seems to have failed to recognized that when the passenger ran back into the airplane he had already been assaulted and seemed frightened and disoriented.  He was already injured.  Earlier, when they grabbed him and yanked him out of his seat he wasn't running around anywhere.  He was not posing a security risk.   He was just sitting in his seat firmly stating he could not miss the flight because he had patients to attend to the next day.  If United had bothered to try harder to offer incentives to the passengers the entire issue might have been avoided in the first place.  When he ran back onto the plane after being violently yanked from his seat and dragged down the aisle, apparently only semi conscious or unconscious,  at that point I don't think he was thinking clearly at all.  I don't think he was making some civil rights statement or just "running around like a banshee" as she puts it just to piss people off.  He needed medical attention and someone to help him calm down.  He was frightened and injured and disoriented.  

 

6.  The bottom line is that airlines provide a service but because of how things are structured, and the fact that many times there is only one airline available in certain areas of the country, unlike with many service oriented industries, the airlines can create rules and policies that are very one sided, favoring them and them alone.  I am hoping that with this incident those policies and rules will be revisited and a better system put in place that keeps airlines running as smoothly and safely as possible, keeps passengers feeling supported, and keeps something like this from EVER happening again.

Edited April 13, 2017 by OneStepAtATime

[StephanieZ]

Well, although of course a flight crew's most important job is keeping everyone safe . . . I think this does not diminish their secondary duties to keep their customers comfortable and to support a pleasant and respectful environment. 

 

A doctor's most important job is keeping/making their patients healthy. A veterinarian's most important job is serving pets' health . . .

 

 . . . but doctors and veterinarians and other health professionals ALSO need to be kind, friendly, timely . . .etc . . . and have facilities that are comfortable, appealing, etc . . . and have staff that support all those "extras" . . .

 

An optometrist's most important job is to fit someone with eyewear that will best improve their vision. 

 

. . . but they also need to facilitate a client finding eyewear that is comfortable and attractive and cost-effective. 

 

A structural engineer's primary duty is to design a bridge/house/whatever that is safe and functional. 

 

. . . but they also need to make it cost-effective and attractive/etc. 

 

ETC ETC ETC

 

Every role in life/job/etc has primary and secondary missions. So, unless the flight attendant is busy all the time keeping folks safe and that prevents them from discharging their secondary duties, then they should be expected to be doing their secondary duties. And, it's up to the airline how much they want to invest in training their staff to be pleasant and courteous and able to PLEASANTLY solve problems that occur . . . If they don't have enough staff/time to do everything on the "secondary" list, then they can staff differently, offer different services (bottled water, etc. as you walk on the flight) . . . or they can just choose to be a low quality airline. 

 

[Happy]

I don't know how to link an article on Facebook, but if you have more questions about the flight crew "deadheading" to their job, please search this article on FB " I know you're mad at United (thoughts from a Pilot wife about flight 3411"

 

This is a great article about the airlines and explaining the position the flight crew is in. I am married to an airline pilot - this was not the flight crew's fault. They are going to their job. They can't simply "drive to the other airport." There Obviously was a reason that crew needed to make it to that destination. - such as the original flight crew being over on hours by a delay or a host of other reasons.

 

Also, tickets are definitely a contract. And in that contract is the ability of airlines to pull that ticket if needed.

 

Please read the article.

My husband is also in the airline industry as a Director of Operations for a small company. I haven't read that piece but I will.

 

I'd love to know if those flight crew had already missed another flight.

 

My husband insists his crew members get to their destinations by NOT using the LAST available flight. He insists they book tickets with at least two additional flights--just in case something weird happens to the first flight. (The company is so small there is no jump seating for flights available.)

 

If they had missed a first and second option, then I can

understand their urgency in getting them on that plane.

 

As the saying goes...poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

[Ravin]

So like the timeline of forming a defense? 

 

The unofficial timeline of forming a defense in the jury of public opinion at least.

[ErinE]

I am hoping that with this incident those policies and rules will be revisited and a better system put in place that keeps airlines running as smoothly and safely as possible, keeps passengers feeling supported, and keeps something like this from EVER happening again.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and well written post. I agree with everything you said. United may have followed all the rules but if the outcome is denying passengers, already seated, their place on the plane then those rules are bad rules.

 

Bear in mind, everyone on the plane refused to give up their seat, all of them, when United offered vouchers. Dr. Dao just maintained his refusal once the airline "re-accommodated" him.

 

We never take vouchers. For every success story using them, I've heard stories where they're impossible to redeem. The offer should be cash, not a promise at some future date they might be worth some thing (but only before they expire). The airline has already shown its inability to get all the passengers from Point A to Point B. Why would anyone on that plane trust United when they say essentially "Next time, we'll get you there"?

[Barb_]

Flight attendants may be only legally there for safety, but that is not how they are advertised. In all of these United ads, flight attendants are shown with towels, pillows and drinks or greeting passengers.

 

https://www.ispot.tv/brands/ABF/united-airlines

Bait and switch.

[Shelly in IL]

Yes, Happy, but since the crew was traveling together, I would assume that they were not deadheading to a destination to commute to work, but to actually see to an already in progress flight that needed a crew due to cancellation of its previous crew. My husband used to commute to his work, but he wouldn't do so with his flight crew - commuters can live anywhere, so the likelihood that all 4 crewmembers just happened to all book last minute to commute to a job is unlikely.

 

The crew would not be put in the jump seat to go to work on that flight, I believe, due to work rules. There are certain rules in place by the union to ensure crew rest even in the case of needing to be deadheaded to a location to carry on the next flight.

[OneStepAtATime]

Yes, Happy, but since the crew was traveling together, I would assume that they were not deadheading to a destination to commute to work, but to actually see to an already in progress flight that needed a crew due to cancellation of its previous crew. My husband used to commute to his work, but he wouldn't do so with his flight crew - commuters can live anywhere, so the likelihood that all 4 crewmembers just happened to all book last minute to commute to a job is unlikely.

 

The crew would not be put in the jump seat to go to work on that flight, I believe, due to work rules. There are certain rules in place by the union to ensure crew rest even in the case of needing to be deadheaded to a location to carry on the next flight.

Agreed.  They were a replacement crew as I understood it.  They were not just traveling for a normal work schedule.  It was a last minute need for a crew to be available in another city.  Or at least that is what some sources are saying.

[gardenmom5]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and well written post. I agree with everything you said. United may have followed all the rules but if the outcome is denying passengers, already seated, their place on the plane then those rules are bad rules.

 

Bear in mind, everyone on the plane refused to give up their seat, all of them, when United offered vouchers. Dr. Dao just maintained his refusal once the airline "re-accommodated" him.

 

We never take vouchers. For every success story using them, I've heard stories where they're impossible to redeem. The offer should be cash, not a promise at some future date they might be worth some thing (but only before they expire). The airline has already shown its inability to get all the passengers from Point A to Point B. Why would anyone on that plane trust United when they say essentially "Next time, we'll get you there"?

 

there are indications united did NOT follow the rules. they can involuntarily boot nonboarded passengers.  after they've boarded - only for cause.  and deadheading airline personnel - isn't.

 

 

and. . . the first two cops have now been suspended.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That probably depends on the state. In Michigan, gag orders are perfectly legal clauses to put into settlement contracts.

 

No, it doesn't.  Gag orders as part of settlement contracts still cannot violate the law and cannot be used as a shield to prevent lawful testimony in court, even though some try to interpret them that way.  A gag order of the nature you describe is most often used as part of a settlement with an injured party which prevents them from discussing the nature of their claim without forfeiting their settlement, which is  very different than using one  to prevent a witness from testifying in a future trial.  Paying a witness for silence is bribery.

[gardenmom5]

No, it doesn't.  Gag orders as part of settlement contracts still cannot violate the law and cannot be used as a shield to prevent lawful testimony in court, even though some try to interpret them that way.  A gag order of the nature you describe is most often used as part of a settlement with an injured party which prevents them from discussing the nature of their claim without forfeiting their settlement, which is  very different than using one  to prevent a witness from testifying in a future trial.  Paying a witness for silence is bribery.

 

or extortion.

 

shut up or we won't refund your money after we screwed your trip.

[Chelli]

I talked about the situation with my friend tonight who has been a flight attendant for Southwest for over a decade.

 

She said that in that situation that Southwest probably would have called airport security as well because when a passenger refuses to get off of the plane when asked that it makes the flight attendants red flags go up and start thinking "possible terrorist" or "someone with nefarious purposes". 

 

She also mentioned that once you are on a plane you must do what the flight attendants, pilots, etc. tell you to do. No questions asked.

 

She did say that the security guard/airport security is the person who messed. She said that his tactics were totally over the top and uncalled for, but that the United flight attendants working that flight did the right thing.

 

She also mentioned that Southwest has bumped people from the plane after they have boarded and been seated so I'm not sure if that is a law as mentioned upthread or if all the airlines just ignore it.

[OneStepAtATime]

there are indications united did NOT follow the rules. they can involuntarily boot nonboarded passengers.  after they've boarded - only for cause.  and deadheading airline personnel - isn't.

 

 

and. . . the first two cops have now been suspended.

Actually, I am really wondering what the rules really are.  I've heard conflicting reports.  Does anyone have a reliable resource?

 

The suspension of the other two cops is interesting.  As far as I can see the other two cops were just doing as the airline had asked and trying to resolve the situation.  I don't think I agree with suspending them.  The goon that did the assaulting and dragging, yeah.  The other two were asked to come remove a passenger that was not cooperating with the order to "volunteer" to leave the plane.  They came and discussed it with him and he did not get out of his seat.  They kept talking to him.  They were doing their job.  I'm not sure what else they could have done.

 

Really, IMHO, this situation and the horrible outcome honestly reside almost exclusively with the policies and poor implementation of those policies that the airline had in place.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I talked about the situation with my friend tonight who has been a flight attendant for Southwest for over a decade.

 

She said that in that situation that Southwest probably would have called airport security as well because when a passenger refuses to get off of the plane when asked that it makes the flight attendants red flags go up and start thinking "possible terrorist" or "someone with nefarious purposes". 

 

She also mentioned that once you are on a plane you must do what the flight attendants, pilots, etc. tell you to do. No questions asked.

 

She did say that the security guard/airport security is the person who messed. She said that his tactics were totally over the top and uncalled for, but that the United flight attendants working that flight did the right thing.

 

She also mentioned that Southwest has bumped people from the plane after they have boarded and been seated so I'm not sure if that is a law as mentioned upthread or if all the airlines just ignore it.

 

No, United messed up as well.  They did not offer enough compensation to get off the flight, and they ramped up to kicking people off almost immediately.  That is all on United.

 

And anyone flight attendant who starts thinking "terrorist" in this situation should be fired for being a moron.  Nothing, I mean literally nothing, in how this went down suggests a security threat.

 

I take serious issue with the airline stance that they can just treat people like garbage and then shriek "But security! Terrorists! 9-11!" and customers are just supposed to sit back and take it.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, I am really wondering what the rules really are.  I've heard conflicting reports.  Does anyone have a reliable resource?

 

The suspension of the other two cops is interesting.  As far as I can see the other two cops were just doing as the airline had asked and trying to resolve the situation.  I don't think I agree with suspending them.  The goon that did the assaulting and dragging, yeah.  The other two were asked to come remove a passenger that was not cooperating with the order to "volunteer" to leave the plane.  They came and discussed it with him and he did not get out of his seat.  They kept talking to him.  They were doing their job.  I'm not sure what else they could have done.

 

Really, IMHO, this situation and the horrible outcome honestly reside almost exclusively with the policies and poor implementation of those policies that the airline had in place.

 

Best explanation I have found is here:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

[creekland]

I may be in the minority, but I am glad that airlines overbook. We love taking advantage of bump compensation. DD did a LOT of her flying back and forth for college on bump $$.

 

We sometimes take advantage of it too - usually with accommodations and a future free trip as well as the rescheduled one.  I have absolutely no problem with it as long as they take volunteers - at whatever level it takes to get volunteers.  When I've booked flights and NEED to get somewhere, I expect to get there short of weather or mechanical difficulties.  Those I understand.  No airline can control weather, but Southwest has been awesome for us when that's happened - even once flying in a totally different plane the next day to pick us up - all on the flight - after the weather had closed BWI and there weren't anywhere near enough seats available to accommodate everyone the next day.

 

If any of us were ever bumped involuntarily, that would be the absolute last time I flew that airline.  Period.  Even if prior to boarding.

 

Americans could fix the way airlines treat passengers almost instantly if no one made a United reservation for the next 10 days, or so. Can you imagine what this would do to the airline industry?!? They would all be scared it could happen to them next! (I thought the same thing after the Wells Fargo mess - if just 25% of their customers would leave...) 

 

Americans could... but the running joke among folks I know is Americans go by price so much (rather than service) that all it will take is for United to price their tickets $1 below the competition.  TBH, I don't think it's a joke.  Americans (many Americans) do only care about price - esp more than service - but also more than what is better for the planet, our economy, our neighbors, and ______.  I can't think of much Americans value more than price.  I know a guy (personally) who drove around town pricing vitamins at three different stores - to discover where they were 24 cents cheaper than the next lowest competitor.  It never occurred to him he spent more in gas, etc, to save his 24 cents.

 

It's why United's stock hasn't sunk.  Sure, some have sold stock at a loss, but many investors realize how Americans and finances work and know this will only be a blip on the radar, making the underpriced stock a good risk for profit.

 

Their stock had slid a whopping 4% (impressive, but honestly not much if investors thought they were going out of business or going to get hit with a severe loss), but rebounded quickly and last I knew were only down about 1.5%.

[FaithManor]

I agree Creekland. Americans as a consumer block only see short term gain - cheapest price - and are willing to sacrifice most anything to get that.

[gardenmom5]

Best explanation I have found is here:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

 

this is similar to what I've been seeing other places since monday afternoon.

 

the difference between denied boarding (happens before you get on the plane) and denied transport. (you're kicked off the plane after you're already aboard.)

 

I'm not looking for the previous link I read . . . but it had said the only time a boarded passenger can be involuntarily kicked out of their seat to make way for a person to take it, is when it's a tsa agent.  (presumably actually working the flight.)  it seemed clear it was not allowed for airline employees.

 

united wants to call this denied boarding - but all the passengers were already boarded and in their seats.

 

the link that jean posted about the guy last week? last month?  in hawaii after he was kicked out of his first class seat (for a "more important person") - made me think united's policies are what is the issue here.  they don't allow employees to extemporize solutions to unusual situations. (the plane had been downsized - so fewer first class seats than when the flight was booked)  he'd had three employees sympathize with him - but "didn't have the authority to do anything."  or, it could be they're just as much of a lout as the ceo and were making excuses. 

 

they're really cheap about what they offer to get people to voluntarily give up their seats.  if they'd been more generous - they would have had people take them up on it, and this debacle never would have happened.

[QueenCat]

Here is what I don't understand; if the no-shows have already PAID for tickets, who really cares if they don't show up? How is the airline losing money from that? I honestly do not understand this.

 

If they have refundable tickets, then the airline has to refund them so long as they canceled before the flight. Typically, they don't have to give much notice (often hours).

[SKL]

I agree that price is the determining factor when I fly, assuming the time difference isn't huge.  Service is nice, but getting where I'm going is all I really care about.  And being able to use the bathroom on a long flight.  I always bring food and water just in case the crew isn't able to serve due to turbulence.

 

So far I have been lucky and not bumped involuntarily off a flight, that I recall.

 

This will remind me to check in at the first possible instant and arrive extra early for our flights to Europe this summer.  Hopefully they wouldn't kick off a mom with two 10yos, right?  :P

[Pam in CT]

re what happens when no-shows have already-paid-for tickets:

If they have refundable tickets, then the airline has to refund them so long as they canceled before the flight. Typically, they don't have to give much notice (often hours).

 

 

Right.  And if the no-shows have non-refundable tickets, the airline keeps the fare of the no-shows, and sells the ticket again if they can, thus getting paid twice for the same seat.

 

As many pp have noted, many business travelers purchase (much more expensive) fully refundable tickets.  

 

Most economy travelers buy non-refundable tickets.   They're priced that way. (This link will expire within a few minutes -- another joy of airline travel -- but I just ran prices for Delta's direct NY to Pittsburgh flight during the weekend I need to drop my son off at college.  A non-refundable seat in the economy section is $240.  A fully refundable seat in the same economy section is $1,248.  A first class seat, also fully refundable, is $1,327.)  (No worries; we'll drive, lol...)

[ScoutTN]

I talked about the situation with my friend tonight who has been a flight attendant for Southwest for over a decade.

 

She said that in that situation that Southwest probably would have called airport security as well because when a passenger refuses to get off of the plane when asked that it makes the flight attendants red flags go up and start thinking "possible terrorist" or "someone with nefarious purposes". 

 

She also mentioned that once you are on a plane you must do what the flight attendants, pilots, etc. tell you to do. No questions asked.

 

She did say that the security guard/airport security is the person who messed. She said that his tactics were totally over the top and uncalled for, but that the United flight attendants working that flight did the right thing.

 

She also mentioned that Southwest has bumped people from the plane after they have boarded and been seated so I'm not sure if that is a law as mentioned upthread or if all the airlines just ignore it.

 

 

Ah, but I suspect that Southwest handled their situation(s) with a good bit more humor and cheerfulness. And likely better incentives?! I have had some delays/cancellations and some ticket problems with Southwest, and while the situations were stressful, their personnel maintained a pleasant demeanor and tried to keep thing upbeat and the passengers responded likewise. 

 

Seems like the United people exacerbated a difficult situation and bad decisions/policies by being churlish. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by ScoutTN

[J-rap]

These discussions are making me long for the days of flying on National, Continental, and Eastern. In those days, United and Delta were much better also. Flying used to be so civilized -- everyone dressed up, and say what you want about airline food but I loved being served the hot trays. It was my favorite part of flying.

 

Delta is going to be offering free meals again on some domestic flights...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-to-bring-back-free-meals-on-some-u-s-flights/

[kitten18]

Ah, but I suspect that Southwest handled their situation(s) with a good bit more humor and cheerfulness. And likely better incentives?! I have had some delays/cancellations and some ticket problems with Southwest, and while the situations were stressful, their personnel maintained a pleasant demeanor and tried to keep thing upbeat and the passengers responded likewise.

 

Seems like the United people exacerbated a difficult situation and bad decisions/policies by being churlish.

And I'm going to guess that when you get a voucher from Southwest that it's easy to use to book a future flight.

[Happy]

Yes, Happy, but since the crew was traveling together, I would assume that they were not deadheading to a destination to commute to work, but to actually see to an already in progress flight that needed a crew due to cancellation of its previous crew. My husband used to commute to his work, but he wouldn't do so with his flight crew - commuters can live anywhere, so the likelihood that all 4 crewmembers just happened to all book last minute to commute to a job is unlikely.

 

The crew would not be put in the jump seat to go to work on that flight, I believe, due to work rules. There are certain rules in place by the union to ensure crew rest even in the case of needing to be deadheaded to a location to carry on the next flight.

I see your point. It's still odd to me that four crewmembers had to be on that flight.

 

Lots of narrow thinking, imho.

[Paige]

I agree Creekland. Americans as a consumer block only see short term gain - cheapest price - and are willing to sacrifice most anything to get that.

 

I think this has a great deal to due with the fact that there is little difference in the service of airlines. All airlines bump people. I've read many articles about who bumps more, and it seems there's some variance in the results. Perhaps it has to do with if they are counting involuntary vs voluntary (but even voluntary=no good, IMO), or who pays out more incentives (does more $$ spent = a good thing or bad, however? Perhaps more money spent means better compensation rather than more bumps), and it also depends on the year you look at. Still, the data supports that all of the major carriers do this, and the minor carriers that have significantly better rates don't serve the majority's needs.

 

We aren't comparing stellar service with poor service when we choose based on price. We're comparing hopefully acceptable and not too bad most of the time with the same. We're gambling either way and no airline has significantly better odds, IMO. Maybe the odds are statistically different, but they aren't meaningfully different in the real world. If some airline came out and said we will never involuntary bump anyone. We will give you food and drink service always, We will give you leg and hip room, and we will give you guaranteed carry on luggage capacity,then I think many people would pay for that guarantee. 

[creekland]

I think this has a great deal to due with the fact that there is little difference in the service of airlines. All airlines bump people. I've read many articles about who bumps more, and it seems there's some variance in the results. Perhaps it has to do with if they are counting involuntary vs voluntary (but even voluntary=no good, IMO), or who pays out more incentives (does more $$ spent = a good thing or bad, however?  

 

Personally, we've seen a bit of difference in service but YMMV.

 

Involuntary is the same as voluntary?  Not in my book.  As mentioned before, some of us LOVE to be bumped (for the future credit given to us), but only WHEN it fits our schedule - ie - voluntary.  I've never been on a flight with involuntary bumping on Southwest.  I've been on several where there's a waiting list of willing people to be bumped if the need arises.  I've also seen stand-by passengers not get on - and I've seen a time when they allowed someone to voluntarily bump so a stand-by passenger with an urgent need could get on.  I'm not sure it that last one is technically allowed or not, so won't say more than that, but I hope the company allows it.

 

There probably are some involuntary bumps on Southwest, they just aren't plentiful enough for me to have come across them, but I doubt they are after boarding and I doubt a Southwest attendant had a bad attitude.  I've never encountered anything remotely resembling a bad attitude with any Southwest employee.  I have with other airlines.

[Bluegoat]

They just sound like they are so badly managed.

 

The principle thing though - as far as not selling seats twice - I would be ok with that.  But what that would come down to, in the end, is the cost of air travel going up all round. 

 

Maybe that isn't a bad thing - air travel has a high environmental cost and we should pay for that. 

 

But in the end, our system is set up for people to pay as little as possible and to drive quality of product down to achieve that.  Or in this case, quality of service.

[Janeway]

I understand the fine print.

 

The message United sent was, "when you shell out hundreds of dollars now to buy a 'ticket' later, it says perfectly clearly here in the fine print that you are not actually buying a service to take you from Point A to Point B.

 

Rather, you are buying a strictly best-efforts indication from us.  IF no other higher-fare customer shows up for the seat on your ticket, and IF we have no other business purpose for the seat on your ticket, and IF there are no other profit- or convenience-related issues on our side, up to and including the moment when you've stowed your carry-on and buckled your seatbelt... 

 

... if there's NO OTHER PURPOSE for which we can use that seat that you've already paid for to better advantage TO US...

 

then and only then, will we take you from Point A to Point B."

 

 

 

Even their own statement says up until you have stowed your carry on and buckled your seat belt..that guy had done all that.

 

Also...this would be more like you buy your groceries and you check out and the clerk decides to not give you your groceries that you just paid for, because he is selling it to someone else that, for whatever reason, he wants to give preference to.

 

The other day, I sold something online. I sold it to the first person who asked. However, right after, I did get a lot more emails asking for it. I must have listed it for too low. The other emails even offered to pay me more for it. Sure, it would have been nice to get the extra money, but, nope, I was honorable and gave it to the person who paid for it.

 

Seems to me when you buy a plane ticket, it is for a specific date and time and unless you pay an extra higher fee, you cannot just not show up and then take a different flight. You can pay, in advance, to change the flight, but you cannot just use it whenever you darn well please. You do not get refunds for unused tickets either. Therefore, whether the passenger is in the seat or not, the airline should not be selling multiple tickets to that seat. The seat is sold. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Janeway

[Lady Florida.]

I just read on the news that Munoz said United will no longer use police to remove "booked, paid, seated" passengers from full flights. It's insane that that even needs to be said. 

 

Who will they use then? Or will they stick to the accepted practice of not allowing people to board rather than "reaccomodating" seated passengers? 

 

The word reaccommodate is getting ridiculed, along with Munez' use of it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/11/re-accommodate-united-gets-lampooned-for-its-awkward-response-to-passenger-dragging/?utm_term=.173269afad70

 

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/10/internet-redefines-re-accommodate-for-united-airlines/

 

There's even an Urban Dictionary definition now.

[Barb_]

Dao suffered a concussion and a broken nose as well as two lost teeth:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-live-stream-david-dao-presser-20170413-story,amp.html

[Lanny]

Dao suffered a concussion and a broken nose as well as two lost teeth:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-live-stream-david-dao-presser-20170413-story,amp.html

 

Yes. Here's a link to a video statement by his daughter:

 

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/13/united-doctor-suffered-concussion-while-being-dragged-from-flight-lawyer-says.html

 

He will be having reconstructive surgery in the next few days. 

[Barb_]

Also, according the the article Dao escaped Vietnam in 1975. He likely experienced significant psychological trauma as a result of the incident, over and above the actual events.

[shawthorne44]

I think this has a great deal to due with the fact that there is little difference in the service of airlines. All airlines bump people. I've read many articles about who bumps more, and it seems there's some variance in the results. Perhaps it has to do with if they are counting involuntary vs voluntary (but even voluntary=no good, IMO), or who pays out more incentives (does more $$ spent = a good thing or bad, however? Perhaps more money spent means better compensation rather than more bumps), and it also depends on the year you look at. Still, the data supports that all of the major carriers do this, and the minor carriers that have significantly better rates don't serve the majority's needs.

 

We aren't comparing stellar service with poor service when we choose based on price. We're comparing hopefully acceptable and not too bad most of the time with the same. We're gambling either way and no airline has significantly better odds, IMO. Maybe the odds are statistically different, but they aren't meaningfully different in the real world. If some airline came out and said we will never involuntary bump anyone. We will give you food and drink service always, We will give you leg and hip room, and we will give you guaranteed carry on luggage capacity,then I think many people would pay for that guarantee. 

 

That is so true.   I paid extra to fly on the dearly-departed Legend airlines.  But then I knew my seat would be equivalent to a domestic first class seat on AA.   The cost was extra, but it was reasonable.  

Other than that, the airlines seem to be roughly equivalent cattle-cars.  

[heartlikealion]

Yes. Here's a link to a video statement by his daughter:

 

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/13/united-doctor-suffered-concussion-while-being-dragged-from-flight-lawyer-says.html

 

He will be having reconstructive surgery in the next few days. 

 

:ohmy:

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Legal move to preserve info

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/david-dao-doctor-dragged-plane-files-court-papers-demanding-united-n745721

 

One thing that news sources keep referring to is the $400 and the $800 that was offered as incentive but many news stories imply that it was cash offered.  As we all know, it wasn't cash.  It was vouchers that can't be stacked.  It would require multiple flights to claim the vouchers.  Some can do that.  Some can't.  I think if they had been waving $800 cash around someone might have taken them up on their offer.

[Seasider]

"the man suffered a significant concussion and broken nose and lost two front teeth" from his lawyers at the press conference

Well that would be why he seemed extremely confused and ran back on the plane.

Good night! Talk about excessive force! That's not just suspension material - the guy who did that should be charged with assault.

[Seasider]

Also, according the the article Dao escaped Vietnam in 1975. He likely experienced significant psychological trauma as a result of the incident, over and above the actual events.

Aha! THIS is the sort of thing I meant to discuss in the earlier post I deleted. A concussion certainly could explain a lot, but to me it did look like something that could have been a PTSD flashback.

[OneStepAtATime]

I thought it had something to do with the recent storms in the middle of the country/south east. Many flights were postponed, then there was a time when the airlines were scrambling to get back on normal schedule.

I'm not excusing anyone, just saying that may have been the reason they needed those 4 employees to be at another location quickly.

Yes I had heard they were needed because of weather related shifts in schedules/planes.  They needed not just a pilot but a larger crew.  

 

I believe that the teacher that pulled his students off the plane stated it was a pilot, a co-pilot and two flight attendants that got on after the incident?  But I can't find that info anymore so I could be misremembering.

[Shelly in IL]

Happy - it is a regular occurrence for crews to be deadheading. It could have been the crew for that next flight. Think 2 pilots and 2 flight attendants or any other mix of crew for that next flight or even crew for more than one flight.

[Paige]

I don't know if I missed it here, but I read that he wasn't even the guy with the criminal record that they dug up. Apparently, he has a common Vietnamese name and it was another guy/Dr who lived 60miles away. It's terrible the way his name was drug through the mud. I wonder if United was behind it in the first place or if that's just SOP these days for junk news outlets. 

 

I stand corrected: My source was no good. He is the same Dr who lost his license for drug crimes. Sorry. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Paige

[kitten18]

I don't know if I missed it here, but I read that he wasn't even the guy with the criminal record that they dug up. Apparently, he has a common Vietnamese name and it was another guy/Dr who lived 60miles away. It's terrible the way his name was drug through the mud. I wonder if United was behind it in the first place or if that's just SOP these days for junk news outlets.

That is terrible. 😢

[Jean in Newcastle]

And yet the same people who were eager to spread rumors tainting his reputation are surprisingly silent when it comes to setting the record straight.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tangerine]

He was not misidentified according to the LA Times and Snopes. I hadn't heard that bit, so I looked it up.

[Audrey]

I don't know how to link an article on Facebook, but if you have more questions about the flight crew "deadheading" to their job, please search this article on FB " I know you're mad at United (thoughts from a Pilot wife about flight 3411"

 

This is a great article about the airlines and explaining the position the flight crew is in. I am married to an airline pilot - this was not the flight crew's fault. They are going to their job. They can't simply "drive to the other airport." There Obviously was a reason that crew needed to make it to that destination. - such as the original flight crew being over on hours by a delay or a host of other reasons.

 

Also, tickets are definitely a contract. And in that contract is the ability of airlines to pull that ticket if needed.

 

Please read the article.

 

 

Absolutely none of the above, nor anything in the Pilot's wife article are an excuse for physically assaulting a passenger.  The policies in place that allow such a thing to even begin to occur are atrocious and completely reprehensible.  The airline is culpable here.  The backlash they will suffer is due to their own policies and procedures.