Jump to content

Menu

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


Lanny
 Share

Recommended Posts

My daughter is flying as an unaccompanied minor for the first time on United in a couple of weeks and then joining her team to fly onto the UK.  This trip wasn't stressful enough for Mom  :scared:

 

"According to United’s contract, passengers who receive priority, i.e. those who are least likely to get bumped, include “passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.â€

 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/11/bumped-from-flight-know-your-rights-before-fly.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to United’s contract, passengers who receive priority, i.e. those who are least likely to get bumped, include “passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.â€

 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/11/bumped-from-flight-know-your-rights-before-fly.html

 

Thanks.  She actually falls under all 3 of those :)  

 

But of course, as a mom, I'm most worried about how she is treated.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I'm also reading - BUT they also said that a couple was asked to leave before he was asked to leave. The report said they were disgruntled, but got up and left the plane, accepting the vouchers offered. They were, supposedly, in the aisle and middle seats of that same row. He was simply the last guy in that row.

 

His wife was on the plane with him (wasn't she?? I'd swear I read that - but she was seated further back in the plane). I would assume they checked in and paid for tickets at the same time.

 

I doubt United's claim of it being a 'random based upon anything logical" if the above two facts turn out to be true.

 

I can't read online articles' comments. The comments about that man are making me question bringing children into this world. Nasty people are boldly making fun of this man. I'm growing further dismayed about humanity.

 

 

which makes me question just how "random" it was. 

most of the sites I've been on have been supportive of the man.  and those who make snide comments - get a lot of pushback.

 

This article says "Last year, United forced 3,765 people off oversold flights and another 62,895 United passengers volunteered to give up their seats, probably in exchange for travel vouchers. That's out of more than 86 million people who boarded a United flight in 2016, according to government figures. United ranks in the middle of U.S. carriers when it comes to bumping passengers."

 

So forcing people off of flights rather than upping the bump offer is presumably part of their policy.  That, I think, is the piece that should be changed based on United's experience.  I wonder how they decide on the max offer before forcible bumping, and how different airlines' max offer affects their force-bump rate.

 

there are laws about bumping people  and forcibly removing a passenger to make room for someone else.  they are not legally allowed to involuntarily remove a passenger who has already boarded to make room for airline employees.    united screwed up by not resolving their crew movement before they boarded the plane.

 

More on the doctor-

 

so - you think it's ok to smear the man who was forcibly removed from his seat after he had boarded his flight and was minding his own business?   this as a distraction to united's breaking the law in this case?

 

They will probably be a LOT more cautious about how they handle things today.  We can hope, anyway.  Hugs and good luck.

 

my son was commenting on that last night.  now's a good time to fly united becasue they're going to be afraid.  very afraid.  I don't currently have any united tickets - and I have no plans on flying them in future.  if ever.

 

 

I do love the memes on the internet. people are really trolling them.

united has a new club.  fight club class.

even merriam-webster's page put out a definition of what "volunteer" means as their word of the day.

 

 

united has a max of $1000 for getting people to "volunteer" to be bumped.  in vouchers that must be used at the same time, of course.  utterly worthless.  no wonder no one took them up on it.   maybe this will teach them to change their policy to something more enticing for customers.

some people are happy to take airlines up on bumping.  one travel writer (who never used to  take offers to be bumped) made $11K for one weekend trip with her family that was ultimately cancelled,.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read this morning that Transportation Department regulations require the airlines to go up to USD $1350 per passenger. It depends upon how many hours the arrival at the destination airport is expected to be when they reroute you onto other flights. In this case, the delay would have been approximately 21 hours..

 

My understanding of this horrendous incident in Chicago is that United originally offered the passengers USD $400 and a night in a hotel and then they upped it to USD $800 and there were no takers. I have not seen (to the best of my memory) an offer above USD $800 to the passengers.

 

Things like this are covered in the "Contract of Carriage" I think it is called, between the individual airline and their passengers.  The Airline tickets refer to, or include that Legalese. It shows for example, what criteria they use to select people to be denied boarding, when the flight is oversold. One example is how United did it. Another example is Southwest. Apparently their method is the last person onto the aircraft would be the first person to be removed, if the flight was oversold.

 

The USD $1350 figure is, I believe, embedded in Federal regulations of the Transportation Department or F.A.A.  so United not going up to that number is not something I understand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting info on the doctor's past.  It might be relevant to the allegations that he was acting erratically and way out of proportion to the situation (before he was physically hurt).

 

How, other than by impuning his character? Even Kentucky probably doesn't allow that under their Rules of Evidence.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, from what I read, this man was 69 years old.  Where is the respect for our elders?  Not to mention the increased potential for serious injury.

 

Add me to the Southwest love club.  We happily pay the extra $12 or so to get early in the seating queue so we can sit together.  Their very generous baggage allowance means that I can check two bags per person, and also means that most people check their bags so there is never a struggle to get overhead space for our carry-ons.  And I once lost an iPod Touch with sentimental value, which they found and returned to me with a lovely little poem enclosed.  They have treated us well when there were unexpected weather delays.  The staff is always pleasant, too - as part owners of the airline, they have skin in the game.  We have paid extra just to fly Southwest, because it takes so much of the stress out of the experience.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is a good example of how we enable the poor treatment of people.

 

His past doesn't matter.  The eyewitnesses and video of the incident matter.  The response of the company involved matters.  The response of the police matters.

 

Do you know what you just did?  You linked to stories that smear the victim.  You, in your complicit behavior, have added to the number of clicks that these stories get.  You have helped to justify these stories.  You have defended your appalling choice to aid those who conduct these smear campaigns by saying "I found it interesting" rather than removing the links - even providing a summary would have been better than leaving them up.

 

Good for you.  You have become a person that hurts others - indirectly, but enabling a company to bully and attack a victim.  My respect for such behavior is nil.

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to United’s contract, passengers who receive priority, i.e. those who are least likely to get bumped, include “passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.â€

 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/11/bumped-from-flight-know-your-rights-before-fly.html

 

Seeing someone else dragged violently off the plane would probably give my kid a panic attack.

 

Note to self: DD's first unaccompanied flight should probably be on Southwest.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read this morning that Transportation Department regulations require the airlines to go up to USD $1350 per passenger. It depends upon how many hours the arrival at the destination airport is expected to be when they reroute you onto other flights. In this case, the delay would have been approximately 21 hours..

 

My understanding of this horrendous incident in Chicago is that United originally offered the passengers USD $400 and a night in a hotel and then they upped it to USD $800 and there were no takers. I have not seen (to the best of my memory) an offer above USD $800 to the passengers.

 

Things like this are covered in the "Contract of Carriage" I think it is called, between the individual airline and their passengers.  The Airline tickets refer to, or include that Legalese. It shows for example, what criteria they use to select people to be denied boarding, when the flight is oversold. One example is how United did it. Another example is Southwest. Apparently their method is the last person onto the aircraft would be the first person to be removed, if the flight was oversold.

 

The USD $1350 figure is, I believe, embedded in Federal regulations of the Transportation Department or F.A.A.  so United not going up to that number is not something I understand.

 

technically - he wasn't denied boarding.  he was already aboard the plane and sitting in his seat. 

there are also rules that once a passenger has been boarded - they can't 'bump' them for airline employees.  that is supposed to be done before passengers are boarded.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the officers involved in the assault has been put on leave.  Glad to know that is not their standard operating procedure.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/video-appears-to-show-passenger-being-removed-from-united-flight/

 

 

“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned,†Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said. “That officer has been placed on leave effective today pending a thorough review of the situation.â€

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good example of how we enable the poor treatment of people.

 

His past doesn't matter. The eyewitnesses and video of the incident matter. The response of the company involved matters. The response of the police matters.

 

Do you know what you just did? You linked to stories that smear the victim. You, in your complicit behavior, have added to the number of clicks that these stories get. You have helped to justify these stories. You have defended your appalling choice to aid those who conduct these smear campaigns by saying "I found it interesting" rather than removing the links - even providing a summary would have been better than leaving them up.

 

Good for you. You have become a person that hurts others - indirectly, but enabling a company to bully and attack a victim. My respect for such behavior is nil.

Wowza!!! Tell me how you really feel!

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Namaste.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the officers involved in the assault has been put on leave.  Glad to know that is not their standard operating procedure.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/video-appears-to-show-passenger-being-removed-from-united-flight/

 

I have to wonder how much of this is just covering their patooties.

that if it hadn't been plastered all over the internet -complete with multiple angles of videos - if  it would just be words.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read this morning that Transportation Department regulations require the airlines to go up to USD $1350 per passenger. It depends upon how many hours the arrival at the destination airport is expected to be when they reroute you onto other flights. In this case, the delay would have been approximately 21 hours..

 

My understanding of this horrendous incident in Chicago is that United originally offered the passengers USD $400 and a night in a hotel and then they upped it to USD $800 and there were no takers. I have not seen (to the best of my memory) an offer above USD $800 to the passengers.

 

Things like this are covered in the "Contract of Carriage" I think it is called, between the individual airline and their passengers.  The Airline tickets refer to, or include that Legalese. It shows for example, what criteria they use to select people to be denied boarding, when the flight is oversold. One example is how United did it. Another example is Southwest. Apparently their method is the last person onto the aircraft would be the first person to be removed, if the flight was oversold.

 

The USD $1350 figure is, I believe, embedded in Federal regulations of the Transportation Department or F.A.A.  so United not going up to that number is not something I understand.

 

Voluntary compensation is not regulated by the DOT.  It is (usually) in the form of vouchers which can be a pain to use.

 

Compensation limits for an involuntary bump are set by the DOT.  If the new flight gets you to your destination within 1 hour of your time = no compensation.  1-4 hours = 2x one way ticket fare with a max of $675.  4+ = 4x one way ticket with a max of $1350.

 

However, when it is is involuntary you can request cash compensation.  The airlines will lie (and have been fined for doing so) and try to claim that they don't have to pay in anything other than vouchers.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good example of how we enable the poor treatment of people.

 

His past doesn't matter.  The eyewitnesses and video of the incident matter.  The response of the company involved matters.  The response of the police matters.

 

Do you know what you just did?  You linked to stories that smear the victim.  You, in your complicit behavior, have added to the number of clicks that these stories get.  You have helped to justify these stories.  You have defended your appalling choice to aid those who conduct these smear campaigns by saying "I found it interesting" rather than removing the links - even providing a summary would have been better than leaving them up.

 

Good for you.  You have become a person that hurts others - indirectly, but enabling a company to bully and attack a victim.  My respect for such behavior is nil.

 

That' a bit over the top IMO.

 

I don't think the doctor's past has anything at all to do with this story. But I did appreciate Gingersmom posting those links just for general information. Anytime I take a stance on something I like to have fully informed opinion and be able to discuss the entire matter intelligently if someone else brings it up. And even though my opinion is that his past is irrelevant, I'm sure there are others I might discuss this matter with who feel differently. Now I'll know what they're referring to and will be prepared to counter it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it is a shame that people think that they can voyeuristically look at other people's lives just because they had something unfortunate happen to them and ended up in the news.  It has nothing to do with being fully informed.  We had no reason to be fully informed about an individual person unless we are on the jury of the lawsuit that I hope happens. 

  • Like 33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

technically - he wasn't denied boarding.  he was already aboard the plane and sitting in his seat. 

there are also rules that once a passenger has been boarded - they can't 'bump' them for airline employees.  that is supposed to be done before passengers are boarded.

 

Yes. This is really strange to me because I worked for 2 different major U.S. Flag airlines when I was young.  The 4 employees were employees of a "Partner" airline.  I don't know if that means they worked for United Express, or, for some other carrier, possibly owned by the same company that operates United Express. . Since there were 4 of them, I am assuming they were Flight Attendants, but I try not to assume. If they were Pilots, they were Pilots for 2 different aircraft that were in Louisville and scheduled to leave Louisville (probably very early) on Monday morning.

 

My guess is that the need for those 4 employees to travel, was an extremely last minute thing, and that they showed up at the Gate after the Boarding process had begun. Or, after the Boarding process had finished.  Had this occurred before the passengers began boarding the aircraft, this would have been much easier to resolve. Possibly they had a crew in Louisville that had become "Illegal" and would not be able to fly early on Monday morning.

 

NOTE:  I am not sure about your belief that paying passengers could not be bumped, because they were airline employees travelling on company business (much different than Non-Revenue, Space-Available passengers).  I have flown on Positive Space tickets when flying on company business. 

 

The  Captain always has the final say about who can be aboard the aircraft. It is not uncommon for someone who is unruly or intoxicated to be removed from an aircraft, so that there is no risk of an in-flight incident with that passenger. My wife told me when we were eating Breakfast today about a passenger who was aboard an Avianca jet from Bogota to Spain.  She was intoxicated, etc., and they had a very bad time with her.  Her return reservation was cancelled by Avianca and she is probably banned from Avianca now. That's a good way to handle intoxicated/obnoxious/etc passengers. 

 

However, in the case Sunday night in Chicago, the man simply wanted/needed to go to Louisville, like the other passengers seated aboard the aircraft.

My impression is that in no way was he unruly/loud/disrputive/aggressive, until they tried to get him to leave the aircraft. That was wrong on his part. He did need to leave the aircraft. However, the way he was removed from that aircraft will be discussed in Marketing and Business courses in Major universities for many years in the future, as an example about how never to treat customers.

 

NOTE: If there was not a "Check Pilot" aboard that flight, the "Jump" seat in the cockpit would have been available.  If the Jump seat was not occupied, one of the 4 could have ridden in the cockpit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, from what I read, this man was 69 years old.  Where is the respect for our elders?  Not to mention the increased potential for serious injury.

 

Add me to the Southwest love club.  We happily pay the extra $12 or so to get early in the seating queue so we can sit together.  Their very generous baggage allowance means that I can check two bags per person, and also means that most people check their bags so there is never a struggle to get overhead space for our carry-ons.  And I once lost an iPod Touch with sentimental value, which they found and returned to me with a lovely little poem enclosed.  They have treated us well when there were unexpected weather delays.  The staff is always pleasant, too - as part owners of the airline, they have skin in the game.  We have paid extra just to fly Southwest, because it takes so much of the stress out of the experience.

 

Quite honestly, any airline does just fine when all goes as planned.  One arrives, checks in, boards, flies, and departs with whatever luggage they came with and pays whatever fees are listed.

 

Where airlines differ is in how they handle the unexpected - the weather/mechanical delays - any overbookings (for whatever reason) - health issues - anxiety issues, etc.

 

To me, that's where Southwest wins handily - esp for a competitively priced airline.  Then add in the perks of two free bags, etc., occasional fun flight crews and similar things one can run across.

 

Oh... their early seating fee is up to $15 now (and has been for a bit).  I just consider that part of the cost.  We love it, but I'm also glad they allow folks cheaper seats if they don't care where they sit.  Some people prefer that (or are struggling to afford the basics).  No one is treated any differently ON the plane.

 

Wowza!!! Tell me how you really feel!

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Namaste.

 

Hmm, well, if we're taking sides, I align with HomeAgain.  I'm sorry I ever clicked on those links giving those sites added viewership.  If they had been stories about how this man had caused trouble on airlines before, then they'd have been worthy of posting.  Pure smear campaigns based upon his past?  No.  Never.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I addressed that above. Being called something you don't like /= a threat.

 

 

 

My point is that it is the perception that counts in critical, potentially life threatening situations. It is a self-defense mechanism at work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I read this morning that Transportation Department regulations require the airlines to go up to USD $1350 per passenger. It depends upon how many hours the arrival at the destination airport is expected to be when they reroute you onto other flights. In this case, the delay would have been approximately 21 hours..

 

My understanding of this horrendous incident in Chicago is that United originally offered the passengers USD $400 and a night in a hotel and then they upped it to USD $800 and there were no takers. I have not seen (to the best of my memory) an offer above USD $800 to the passengers.

 

Things like this are covered in the "Contract of Carriage" I think it is called, between the individual airline and their passengers. The Airline tickets refer to, or include that Legalese. It shows for example, what criteria they use to select people to be denied boarding, when the flight is oversold. One example is how United did it. Another example is Southwest. Apparently their method is the last person onto the aircraft would be the first person to be removed, if the flight was oversold.

 

The USD $1350 figure is, I believe, embedded in Federal regulations of the Transportation Department or F.A.A. so United not going up to that number is not something I understand.

Delta offered us $1000 each plus hotel plus food vouchers plus private taxi. And the only reason we took it was that we could get it IN amazon which we use a lot. You do not ever get cash. Otherwise we would not have been willing since we had a house sitter at home waiting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in the case Sunday night in Chicago, the man simply wanted/needed to go to Louisville, like the other passengers seated aboard the aircraft.

My impression is that in no way was he unruly/loud/disrputive/aggressive, until they tried to get him to leave the aircraft. That was wrong on his part. He did need to leave the aircraft. However, the way he was removed from that aircraft will be discussed in Marketing and Business courses in Major universities for many years in the future, as an example about how never to treat customers. 

 

From what I'm reading, the man was correct.  Since he was already on board, he did NOT have to leave the airplane merely because they told him he had to.  If he had done so, he'd have been complicit with their illegal request and been compensated essentially nothing.  United would still be doing these sorts of things if/when they come up.

 

Now, at least (looking at the positive) hopefully United will be shamed enough into changing their ways rather than assuming whatever they want to do is just plain ok - legal or not.

 

The fact that they are losing oodles of money over what should have been a financial molehill is a huge plus IMO.  Money talks and tends to get decent changes.  Plus, the spillover effect will carry over to any other airline who might have been doing the same.  One knows they are watching.

 

I feel sorry for this guy with the incident and his past being broadcast all over, but literally millions of future passengers can thank him for what he did.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that it is the perception that counts in critical, potentially life threatening situations. It is a self-defense mechanism at work. 

 

The words matter as well.  Anyone claiming a threat over being called an "a-hole" is lying, plain and simple, and no reasonable court would find in their favor.  Which is why video evidence/witnesses is important as the flight crews/security will lie their butts off in these situations.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a flight from Chicago to Louisville though - at a certain price point, I would've taken the money and rented a car and driven to Louisville (a 4.5 hour drive).

Umm ... the only time that this would be an accurate estimation would be overnight with no night roadwork.  Having driven it, I'd say that you're bound to hit rush hour in one of those cities at one point or another.  I'd say 5.5 to 6 hours of a really, really boring drive would be more accurate.  And there really isn't much as far as good food en route. Further off the expressway?  For sure.

 

 

As far as the cameras - I personally would rather not have had that footage of myself all over the internet.  It would have been better for those folks to turn the videos over to the man privately or to the cops.

While I would probably not be super thrilled about an unflattering video of me all over the internet (and my abdomen showing in this shape would cause me some embarrassment,) the video is why we are talking about this rather than United getting away with sweeping this under the rug.  The video has driven mass outrage.  This accomplished much more than other people trying to stand up for him (despite many people on the video being heard complaining loudly about how this man was treated.)  And turning this over to the cops?  Really?  In Chicago, no less? Surely you jest! 

 

This is the police department's statement:

 

Editing to add, according to an article posted further down thread, the Chicago Police Department has "retreated" from this statement.

 

"Today the department retreated from the statement, referring all enquiries to the Aviation Department. " 

 

C9Ej6bvXcAArSg2.jpg

Umm, the video shows some forceful actions on the part of the police taking place before the man is removed from his seat.  The loud complaints and exclamations of horror started long before he was actually removed from his seat.  What a load of crap!

 

I wish I hadn't clicked on those. I certainly don't want to send any more traffic (and advertising $$) to TMZ, an business I detest.  All this does is fuel those online trolls. 

 

Edited for typos and clarity.

Edited by dirty ethel rackham
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I'm reading, the man was correct. Since he was already on board, he did NOT have to leave the airplane merely because they told him he had to. If he had done so, he'd have been complicit with their illegal request and been compensated essentially nothing. United would still be doing these sorts of things if/when they come up.

As it was explained to me by a flight attendant, when I was politely trying to explain that what she said I couldn't do was actually allowable per the airline's rules, when onboard the plane, there is *no* arguing or disobeying allowed wrt a flight attendant's instruction, even if your action itself would otherwise be legitimate. If the flight attendant doesn't allow it, then that's the final word wrt this flight, period. If you want to insist otherwise, you have to leave the plane (and so miss this particular flight) and get it sorted out away from the plane. Or else suck it up for this flight and complain after the fact. There's no room for "refusing illegal orders" *and* "remaining on the plane for this flight" - either refuse and deplane, or suck it up and fly.

 

And in this case, since the order was to leave, the options were to leave or leave: either deplane willingly or be deplaned by force - which does rather suck. But I don't think general you have a leg to stand on wrt your right to both refuse to follow an illegal order *and* remain onboard the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actually would make *less* sense to me, because I'd have expected airline employees to be the first ones *bumped*.  It's like why the hosts of a party (and their families) don't serve themselves till last - if they run short of something, then they want to inconvenience *themselves* before their guests.  Making a huge to-do over kicking off a customer for the benefit of an employee is the exact *opposite* of how it should work, kwim?

 

If it's crew that will be late for a flight they are working, then they need to be on that plane. Many crew members don't live in the city they are flying out of, since where they fly out of can change often, especially in one's early years, they have to "dead head" as they call it to the city they are working out of that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's crew that will be late for a flight they are working, then they need to be on that plane. Many crew members don't live in the city they are flying out of, since where they fly out of can change often, especially in one's early years, they have to "dead head" as they call it to the city they are working out of that day.

Actually, there are other carriers into Louisville. They sooooo did not have to do this, and should not have. They had options; they didn't give a damn.

Edited by FaithManor
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it is a shame that people think that they can voyeuristically look at other people's lives just because they had something unfortunate happen to them and ended up in the news.  It has nothing to do with being fully informed.  We had no reason to be fully informed about an individual person unless we are on the jury of the lawsuit that I hope happens. 

 

somehow- I think the no one on the jury will care what smear tactics the airlines used against the passenger.  I doubt it would change their minds about what they did.

 

Yes. This is really strange to me because I worked for 2 different major U.S. Flag airlines when I was young.  The 4 employees were employees of a "Partner" airline.  I don't know if that means they worked for United Express, or, for some other carrier, possibly owned by the same company that operates United Express. . Since there were 4 of them, I am assuming they were Flight Attendants, but I try not to assume. If they were Pilots, they were Pilots for 2 different aircraft that were in Louisville and scheduled to leave Louisville (probably very early) on Monday morning.

 

My guess is that the need for those 4 employees to travel, was an extremely last minute thing, and that they showed up at the Gate after the Boarding process had begun. Or, after the Boarding process had finished.  Had this occurred before the passengers began boarding the aircraft, this would have been much easier to resolve. Possibly they had a crew in Louisville that had become "Illegal" and would not be able to fly early on Monday morning.

 

NOTE:  I am not sure about your belief that paying passengers could not be bumped, because they were airline employees travelling on company business (much different than Non-Revenue, Space-Available passengers).  I have flown on Positive Space tickets when flying on company business. 

 

The  Captain always has the final say about who can be aboard the aircraft. It is not uncommon for someone who is unruly or intoxicated to be removed from an aircraft, so that there is no risk of an in-flight incident with that passenger. My wife told me when we were eating Breakfast today about a passenger who was aboard an Avianca jet from Bogota to Spain.  She was intoxicated, etc., and they had a very bad time with her.  Her return reservation was cancelled by Avianca and she is probably banned from Avianca now. That's a good way to handle intoxicated/obnoxious/etc passengers. 

 

However, in the case Sunday night in Chicago, the man simply wanted/needed to go to Louisville, like the other passengers seated aboard the aircraft.

My impression is that in no way was he unruly/loud/disrputive/aggressive, until they tried to get him to leave the aircraft. That was wrong on his part. He did need to leave the aircraft. However, the way he was removed from that aircraft will be discussed in Marketing and Business courses in Major universities for many years in the future, as an example about how never to treat customers.

 

NOTE: If there was not a "Check Pilot" aboard that flight, the "Jump" seat in the cockpit would have been available.  If the Jump seat was not occupied, one of the 4 could have ridden in the cockpit. 

 

they had previously bumped a passenger before they boarded anyone.   a "partner" airline could be United itself - if this was united express. it could be pilots and f/as.  it sounded like it was crew for one plane.  so in total - they bumped/deplaned five paying passengers.

 

there is involuntarily bumping - which is for someone who has NOT boarded the plane when no one will voluntarily make space.  (united's offerings really weren't very good.)

and there is refusal to transport  - re: the passenger is already seated ON the plane and kicked-off.  airlines are legally NOT allowed to do that to make room for employees.  the only time airlines are allowed to kick off a seated passenger to make room for someone else is tsa agents. NOT airline employees.  an already disruptive passenger isn't  the same thing as what happened here.   they kicked these people off - refused to transport - because they were making room for airline employees.

 

someone on the airline end screwed up by NOT taking care of space for them before the flight was boarded - and they handled it spectacularly badly.  now, the internet is mocking them up one side and down the other.  laws were broken on united's end.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are other carriers into Louisville. They sooooo did not have to do this, and should not have. They had options; they didn't give a damn.

 

I didn't say I agreed with the way it was handled. I don't. I was explaining why employees getting seats might trump a paying passenger. They should have increased incentives or something but it was handled poorly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it was explained to me by a flight attendant, when I was politely trying to explain that what she said I couldn't do was actually allowable per the airline's rules, when onboard the plane, there is *no* arguing or disobeying allowed wrt a flight attendant's instruction, even if your action itself would otherwise be legitimate. If the flight attendant doesn't allow it, then that's the final word wrt this flight, period. If you want to insist otherwise, you have to leave the plane (and so miss this particular flight) and get it sorted out away from the plane. Or else suck it up for this flight and complain after the fact. There's no room for "refusing illegal orders" *and* "remaining on the plane for this flight" - either refuse and deplane, or suck it up and fly.

 

And in this case, since the order was to leave, the options were to leave or leave: either deplane willingly or be deplaned by force - which does rather suck. But I don't think general you have a leg to stand on wrt your right to both refuse to follow an illegal order *and* remain onboard the plane.

and sometimes those orders are illegal - then you do what they say - and sue afterwards.

 

 

If it's crew that will be late for a flight they are working, then they need to be on that plane. Many crew members don't live in the city they are flying out of, since where they fly out of can change often, especially in one's early years, they have to "dead head" as they call it to the city they are working out of that day.

 

from what I have read under the law - they can bump an preboarded (aka: not on the plane) passenger to make space for employees.  after the passenger has been boarded in their seat - they aren't allowed to.

 

united screwed up by trying to get those people on at the last minute.  they could have put them on a different flight, even with a "partner" carrier.  chartering a last minute private plane would have been cheaper than what this is going to cost them in the long run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it was explained to me by a flight attendant, when I was politely trying to explain that what she said I couldn't do was actually allowable per the airline's rules, when onboard the plane, there is *no* arguing or disobeying allowed wrt a flight attendant's instruction, even if your action itself would otherwise be legitimate. If the flight attendant doesn't allow it, then that's the final word wrt this flight, period. If you want to insist otherwise, you have to leave the plane (and so miss this particular flight) and get it sorted out away from the plane. Or else suck it up for this flight and complain after the fact. There's no room for "refusing illegal orders" *and* "remaining on the plane for this flight" - either refuse and deplane, or suck it up and fly.

 

And in this case, since the order was to leave, the options were to leave or leave: either deplane willingly or be deplaned by force - which does rather suck. But I don't think general you have a leg to stand on wrt your right to both refuse to follow an illegal order *and* remain onboard the plane.

 

No, but it gives you a better case in court where you can put the hammer down on these morons for their ineptitude.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Instead of overbooking, why don't just refuse to issue refunds? If you pay for the flight and then don't show up, you don't get your money back. Actually, I thought that was pretty standard, anyway.

 

 

Typically, you have the option to purchase a less expensive nonrefundable ticket OR a more expensive refundable ticket. Businesses often by refundable tickets as business needs can change at a moments notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it was explained to me by a flight attendant, when I was politely trying to explain that what she said I couldn't do was actually allowable per the airline's rules, when onboard the plane, there is *no* arguing or disobeying allowed wrt a flight attendant's instruction, even if your action itself would otherwise be legitimate. If the flight attendant doesn't allow it, then that's the final word wrt this flight, period. If you want to insist otherwise, you have to leave the plane (and so miss this particular flight) and get it sorted out away from the plane. Or else suck it up for this flight and complain after the fact. There's no room for "refusing illegal orders" *and* "remaining on the plane for this flight" - either refuse and deplane, or suck it up and fly.

 

And in this case, since the order was to leave, the options were to leave or leave: either deplane willingly or be deplaned by force - which does rather suck. But I don't think general you have a leg to stand on wrt your right to both refuse to follow an illegal order *and* remain onboard the plane.

 

I suspect he has a much better court case coming up because he didn't leave than he ever would have had if he had left.

 

There are times when one has to color within the lines - and there are times when it's better not to (civil disobedience).  Because he chose not to, any future airline passenger could benefit if they're in the same position.  If he had chosen to, nothing would have changed down the line - absolutely nothing.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused.  If 200 people buy tickets and 10 don't show up, how is money lost?

 

If I pay $250 for a ticket and you give me $400 to take a different flight, how is money saved?

 

If those 10 people bought refundable tickets, then they lost on 10 seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ds17 is flying by himself for the first time this summer on United. I had to explain all of this to him even though it probably won't happen to him, but it could. He's already aware of just how bad things can go with the TSA so, yeah, I'm appalled with what happened.

 

They typically don't do this with minors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience with SW last summer was kind of crazy.  It is like everything that could go wrong went wrong on the way to our destination--NYC.  First in Dallas (our layover) after we were all boarded the flight was cancelled.  Poof.  Just cancelled.  Bad weather somewhere up the line.  They announced we were  probably all going to have to reschedule for a Sunday flight (this was Friday).  So we raced off the plane and to the counter and managed to get the last 4 seats on a flight leaving the next day (Saturday) It was routed through St. Louis, but at this point we didn't care.  As a side note an unaccompanied minor was put on a plane back to her home so as not to leave her alone in Dallas over night. 

 

Anyway, so we then try to get our luggage. Nightmare.  They didn't want to give anyone their luggage.  We accepted their answer but others did not and eventually they brought all the luggage to us.  So we try to chill....go get a hotel and veg out all evening eating take out and playing on our phones.  The next day we get up and go to the airport.  The boys boarded first (seats not together or even in the same section).  Their tickets seem fine.  Dh and I though had bad tickets.  Someone had failed to key us in as confirmed so they gave our tickets away. I was like, 'um, my kids are on the plane already.'  They went to work like crazy people not even really talking to us just working, working, working to fix the problem.  After about 20 minutes someone came off the plane to accept their voucher offer....and THEN turns out in the end they had someone else not show up that was confirmed and so the poor guy got off the plane for not.  I hope they still gave him that voucher.  Seems like they should have.

 

So then we get to St Louis and try to board...same thing. All 4 tickets not confirmed.  At that point I was about to burst into tears.  My big vacation seemed like it was being ruined....but I kept calm and they fixed it. 

 

Honestly I had no issue at all with their customer service/treatment of us.  It just seemed like a comedy of errors that was no one person's fault.

 

And then on the way home dh passed out on the flight!  Ugh. 

 

Other than that we had a fabulous time.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's a report from another person on the plane - who was close enough to hear the whole thing.   a teacher on a trip with students - they ended up getting off because of this fiasco.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teacher-on-united-flight-took-students-off-plane-after-incident/ar-BBzJbF0?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

the airline were rude in the way they announced the need for four people to leave a fully loaded plane.  that turned a lot of people off.  then things got bad.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has absolutely zero to do with what United did to him. It doesn't change my opinion at all.

This absolutely doesn't change my crummy opinion of what UA did.

 

<snip>

 

ETA oh gosh, I had/have no intention to victim blame! Deleting part of my comment lest it be misinterpreted.

Edited by Seasider
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I find nothing funny about this situation, I also think that United and its CEO deserve some mockery. Here is how twitter went after them:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/NewUnitedAirlinesMottos

 

#NewUnitedAirlinesMottos

 

My favorite pick amongst them:

United Airlines:

"We treat you like we treat your luggage."

 

or maybe the Samuel L Jackson ones, or maybe the one that says "Board as a doctor and leave as a patient".

Edited by mathnerd
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That letter is terrible — they just keep making this worse and worse.

 

Several people commented on a website that deals with travel issues that "denial of boarding" (aka getting bumped) is not the same thing as "refusal of transport," and that different rules apply. In other words, the airline did NOT have the legal right to remove him once he was boarded:

 

After reading the letter my first thought was 'put down the shovel'. Just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I find nothing funny about this situation, I also think that United and its CEO deserve some mockery. Here is how twitter went after them:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/NewUnitedAirlinesMottos

 

#NewUnitedAirlinesMottos

 

My favorite pick amongst them:

United Airlines:

"We treat you like we treat your luggage."

 

or maybe the Samuel L Jackson ones, or maybe the one that says "Board as a doctor and leave as a patient".

 

some pro football play tweeted a picture of himself tackling another player.

 

"I once  had to 're-accomodate' someone" . . . .

 

united deserves every bit of mockery they're getting.  

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...