United Flight Forcibly Removes Passenger

[Young Drachma]

Passenger Forcibly Removed From United Flight, Prompting Outcry : The Two-Way : NPR

Soo...obviously if you have the internet you might have heard about this. Curious what FOFC thinks of the overreach and what the fallout might be. Lip service? A massive lawsuit? A settlement?

[Young Drachma]

@United overbook #flight3411 and decided to force random passengers off the plane. Here's how they did it: pic.twitter.com/QfefM8X2cW

— Jayse D. Anspach (@JayseDavid) April 10, 2017

[molson]

Unfortunately, I think this is just a symptom of how the airlines are allowed to do business. It's legal for airlines to overbook and it's legal for airlines to kick people off a plane when they've overbooked. So if they have the legal authority to remove someone, then someone certainly doesn't get to supersede that authority just by refusing. If an officer has the authority (and in this case, probably the duty) to remove you from a plane or car, then they can remove you from that plane or car, as unseemly as it looks.

The problem is with United and what they're allowed to do, not this staff on the ground. I'm sure they have this protocol - offer $400, then $800, then start bumping people. This one sucked way more than usual because the bumped people were already on the plane, but I'm sure they're "allowed" to do that. But really, under that protocol, and other that way that United chooses to do business, what are they supposed to do at that point? "Well, that guy refused, let's draw another random passenger name". I doubt they had the discretion, as a matter of company policy, to start making individual judgments how much different passengers really need to be somewhere, or to offer more than $800.

Best case scenario is that the legislature takes another look at this involuntary bumping problem and at least mandates more compensation to help make this practice as rare as possible. I could maybe see Trump supporting something like that, I could see him getting all into the angry/pitchfork thing. "Trump Airlines never did this!! Sad!!"

[larrymcg421]

They would probably win a lawsuit due to the letter of the law, but would be smart to settle for PR purposes. Even smarter would have been to offer more money until someone finally accepted.

[cartman]

It was United that made the call to bump the passenger from the flight, but it wasn't United employees that removed him from the plane. I could be wrong, but I don't think United has any say or control over the security employed by the airport.

[murrayyyyy]

Just imagine if he was wearing leggings. /s

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Even smarter would have been to offer more money until someone finally accepted.

The fact that they cut it off at $800 is insane. I fly a fair bit for work, typically on Delta, and I don't even start paying attention until they get above $800. That's the point when they've cleared out all the suckers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cartman

It was United that made the call to bump the passenger from the flight, but it wasn't United employees that removed him from the plane. I could be wrong, but I don't think United has any say or control over the security employed by the airport.

Yeah, that's why United would probably win the lawsuit, but he probably has a claim against the airport since even they admitted that the guard did not act according to procedure.

[molson]

I like how the guy somehow got away from the officers/security and ran back onto the plane after they dragged him off. I admire his defiance, but, did he think everybody was going to give up and let him stay after all that?

[dawgfan]

Terrible PR for United, and people should get fired over it. It never should have gotten to this point. Keep bumping up the offers to get people to give up their seat.

[CrescentMoonie]

United Airlines is pleased to announce new seating on all domestic flights- in addition to United First and Economy Plus we introduce.... pic.twitter.com/KQjPClU2d2

— McNeil (@Reflog_18) April 10, 2017

[mckerney]

Should've had a Pepsi with him.

[NobodyHere]

This and being groped by TSA agents are two excellent reasons why I choose not to fly.

[Ben E Lou]

Latest @United Airlines commercial. pic.twitter.com/E3wRtc7yKa

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) April 10, 2017

[JonInMiddleGA]

I did a quick take on this already, so I'll just shamelessly repurpose it rather than re-typing.

Best I can tell from the articles, it's United's plane, not the passenger's. They say leave, you leave. Failure to do so is effectively trespassing at that point.
Overbooking sucks, not sure I wouldn't outlaw it entirely if I was king frankly. But if you refused to leave my property after being asked, and then told, to do so, you'd end up in a lot worse shape than this character did. That makes it pretty hard for my to criticize United without being a hypocrite. And I try really hard to avoid that.

(underlining one point for emphasis here)

[Ben E Lou]

Sure. But the fact that he should have just gotten off the plane at that point doesn't make United any less stupid for letting it get to that point. I expect the general public to be dumb. I expect major companies to understand basic economics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Sure. But the fact that he should have just gotten off the plane at that point doesn't make United any less stupid for letting it get to that point. I expect the general public to be dumb. I expect major companies to understand basic economics.

United is already the lowest rated full-size domestic airline for customer satisfaction. I'd say the large majority of their passengers are people for whom there simply isn't another reasonable option.

How much damage can they really suffer from a bad p.r. hit? They're already considered about as shitty as it gets.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

United is already the lowest rated full-size domestic airline for customer satisfaction. I'd say the large majority of their passengers are people for whom there simply isn't another reasonable option.

How much damage can they really suffer from a bad p.r. hit? They're already considered about as shitty as it gets.

Heh. I didn't realize that. I'm pretty much Delta-only for work, which means with the status I get I'm also Delta-only for personal flights.

[HomerSimpson98]

There's always Spirit Airlines to go just a little lower!!

[cuervo72]

Trying to imagine a scenario now where a doctor makes a patient go through the check-in procedure, wait for a few hours, make their way to an exam table, and then be told to leave before being forcibly removed from the office.

(Ok, I'm actually trying to imagine Jon's reaction after having this happen to him. )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

(Ok, I'm actually trying to imagine Jon's reaction after having this happen to him. )

I'd have plenty of fun working out my recourse/response, to be sure ... but at no point can I imagine me failing to grasp the concept of "I have no legal right to be here beyond that which the owner extends me".

Go after the money you may have lost (obviously), hell go for inconvenience damages, lots of things in the realm of possibility. But if I refuse to leave, any head banging I may suffer is on me, not them.

[Drake]

I'm thinking the doctor here didn't think things all the way through to the end game, which was probably his biggest mistake. There's no scenario there where he wins.

I also think that, while this looks like shit, United wins any lawsuit (their plane, their rules).

But this video going viral is going to cost them a shit ton more than going off script and popping your $800 cap. Doesn't make good business sense...but from what I'm hearing, if it made good business sense, we wouldn't be talking about United in the first place.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd have plenty of fun working out my recourse/response, to be sure ... but at no point can I imagine me failing to grasp the concept of "I have no legal right to be here beyond that which the owner extends me".

Go after the money you may have lost (obviously), hell go for inconvenience damages, lots of things in the realm of possibility. But if I refuse to leave, any head banging I may suffer is on me, not them.

Bah, measured, rational reactions aren't any fun!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm thinking the doctor here didn't think things all the way through to the end game, which was probably his biggest mistake. There's no scenario there where he wins.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the airline settle the forthcoming lawsuit.

[NobodyHere]

[Drake]

Actually, I think what surprises me the most about things like this is related to the fact that my wife is a psych nurse. She literally spends all day dealing with non-compliant, unstable, mentally ill people all day long...and she's never had to bounce a guy's head off a chair to get him to comply.

I mean, she's five foot nothing, so that might be a stretch anyway...but she's never even had to. And she's not allowed to, even if she had the physical advantage. And the facility where she works doesn't have security for client management. If somebody gets violent, she's calling 911 right along with the rest of us.

Violence isn't a tool in her toolbox. She's prohibited by policy, if nothing else, from resorting to it just to get someone to comply with her instructions.

I think that's what aggravates people the most when they see stuff like this. Most of us don't have a license to resort to violence. We're more than happy to give tacit approval to soldiers and cops when violence is necessary...when it's the last resort and the situation has escalated to the point where harm is imminent. But when you jump to it just because you're peeved, on a power trip, or it's allowed in your job description, you've pretty much failed at adulting in a way that the rest of us aren't allowed to fail without having to go in front of a judge and (at the very least) pay some big-assed fines.

(For the record: I also worked in mental health back in college. I once had to pull a baseball bat on a guy who came in with a gun and was upset about not being allowed admission to the facility. Otherwise, my standard line was essentially, "Look, buddy, you can hit me if you want, but you just need to understand that if you do, it's going to cost you at least ten thousand dollars and the next two years of your life. And I get to hit you back." I'm not a big buy, but I was the gatekeeper to detox services from 11 PM to 7 AM in the only facility that took people off the street without insurance in the cold, dark weeks of winter. Best not to have me think you're an asshole. Then again, knowing your leverage points and being willing to exploit them is a standard part of de-escalating conflict.)

[stevew]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Should've had a Pepsi with him.

That SNL Skit was amazing

[miami_fan]

Who keeps ordering these code reds for United?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Who keeps ordering these code reds for United?

This is the worst way to make a sequel to A Few Good Men.

[miami_fan]

Public face:

United CEO response to United Express Flight 3411. pic.twitter.com/rF5gNIvVd0

— United (@united) April 10, 2017

Private face

United CEO email to employees obtained by ABC's @Shahriar44R: "there are lessons we can learn from this experience" pic.twitter.com/N1TbohuRc3

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) April 10, 2017

Note to Mr Munoz- By releasing this email, someone at United is not standing behind you.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Public face:

United CEO response to United Express Flight 3411. pic.twitter.com/rF5gNIvVd0

— United (@united) April 10, 2017

Private face

United CEO email to employees obtained by ABC's @Shahriar44R: "there are lessons we can learn from this experience" pic.twitter.com/N1TbohuRc3

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) April 10, 2017

Note to Mr Munoz- By releasing this email, someone at United is not standing behind you.

I don't see anything in the public tweet or the private email which are contradictory. And while you may be correct that a United employee releasing the email to the public is an indication they don't agree with their CEO on this in some way, I also don't see anything in the email that is disturbing or different from what we understand happened from prior media sources.

What point are you looking to make?

[tarcone]

Corporate America and their brown shirts for the win.

[dawgfan]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ompting-outcry

Key quotes:

The Chicago Department of Aviation, meanwhile, says the actions of the security officers were "not condoned by the Department" and that one individual has been placed on leave pending a review.

Airlines are legally allowed to remove passengers from flights for nearly any reason — including to vacate a seat for someone else. But the method shown on these videos is not typical. One aviation expert tells NPR that the scene on Flight 4311 was "extremely unusual."

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm thinking the doctor here didn't think things all the way through to the end game, which was probably his biggest mistake. There's no scenario there where he wins.

Ehh, idk. If they offer up to $800 I'd think they'd keep upping that offer at least. Or because it's only for staff members and not some national security claim I'd assume they might find a different way to get those employees the 300 miles from Chicago to Louisville instead of dragging passengers out of a seat. Renting a car and telling them to drive 5 hours is probably a whole lot cheaper than the $3200+ you were going to pay to bump people... heck, rent them an Uber and give each employee $500 each to make that grueling 5 hour car ride at that point.

I also think we all can agree the biggest mistake here on their part was United allowing people to board then trying to pull tickets. I've always known the danger with overbooking and been in plenty of airport lounges where they're going through the process to get people to give up their seat, but I honestly assumed that once you had a boarding pass with a seat number you were golden unless you chose to give it up. Let alone were physically sitting on the plane.

[sovereignstar v2]

Do they actually offer up straight cash or flight vouchers?

[tarcone]

This whole overbooking thing confuses me.
What is the point of it? Are they expecting cancellations?

It doesnt make any sense to overbook.

[Edward64]

As a frequent flyer (with Delta) and having been caught up in last weeks fiasco, my patience with airlines is nil and hope the guy gets a ton of money and some people get fired.

Regardless of legal or not, it didn't seem that United exhausted all its options and the execution was plain stupid.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This whole overbooking thing confuses me.
What is the point of it? Are they expecting cancellations?

It doesnt make any sense to overbook.

Believe it or not, but the no show rate for flights is historically around 3-5%. Since you can't store an empty seat, the airlines lose money if they don't try to fill them. Hotels do the same thing.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This whole overbooking thing confuses me.
What is the point of it? Are they expecting cancellations?

It doesnt make any sense to overbook.

From my understanding is that a certain amount of any airplane tickets go unused. Empty seats could be making more revenue. Thus you make sure there are no empty seats.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cartman

Believe it or not, but the no show rate for flights is historically around 3-5%. Since you can't store an empty seat, the airlines lose money if they don't try to fill them. Hotels do the same thing.

or that

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Ehh, idk. If they offer up to $800 I'd think they'd keep upping that offer at least. Or because it's only for staff members and not some national security claim I'd assume they might find a different way to get those employees the 300 miles from Chicago to Louisville instead of dragging passengers out of a seat. Renting a car and telling them to drive 5 hours is probably a whole lot cheaper than the $3200+ you were going to pay to bump people... heck, rent them an Uber and give each employee $500 each to make that grueling 5 hour car ride at that point.

Outside my expertise but ... one possible difference that comes to mind immediately are matters involving crew rest / down time between flights.

[bob]

Why Delta Air Lines Paid Me $11,000 Not To Fly To Florida This Weekend

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#ef9e5344de16

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Outside my expertise but ... one possible difference that comes to mind immediately are matters involving crew rest / down time between flights.

Yeah, well outside my expertise as well, but I'm also wondering what the circumstances could be that presumably changed between the time the flight started boarding & before it left the gate. Or if that's really S.O.P. by United to let crewmembers bump people who are already on a plane, or if someone really messed that part up. Like I said, legal or not, that psychological difference between being denied boarding and being physically removed from a plane seat is driving probably 90% of the outrage here (with 10% officers being unable to properly apply force despite a numbers and strength advantage.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I did a quick take on this already, so I'll just shamelessly repurpose it rather than re-typing.

Best I can tell from the articles, it's United's plane, not the passenger's. They say leave, you leave. Failure to do so is effectively trespassing at that point.
Overbooking sucks, not sure I wouldn't outlaw it entirely if I was king frankly. But if you refused to leave my property after being asked, and then told, to do so, you'd end up in a lot worse shape than this character did. That makes it pretty hard for my to criticize United without being a hypocrite. And I try really hard to avoid that.

(underlining one point for emphasis here)

I'm confused by the narrative of this story too. I get being upset with United for overbooking. I get people saying they'd never fly United for not offering more for a customer to leave. Heck, if I was booted from a flight, I'd never fly that airline again.

But that guy has no right to sit on that plane. He was trespassing. He was belligerent. You can argue that the response was over-the-top, but that sometimes happens when you put yourself in a violent confrontation in a closed space.

Those who are defending this guy, what do you think should happen? That if you just say no you can fly wherever you want? That someone else has to get kicked off? It's a shitty situation to boot someone from a flight but someone had to go in that situation.

[molson]

I definitely wouldn't want that guy performing a surgery on me. (Though I wonder if he's really a doctor, it's interesting that we haven't heard from him, or even learned his identity).

I guess it is good to have a little public outrage over the way airlines treat people. But those poor other passengers who just left their seats like normal people before the incident, and had their own lives disrupted, aren't going to get the settlement this guy probably will.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Ehh, idk. If they offer up to $800 I'd think they'd keep upping that offer at least. Or because it's only for staff members and not some national security claim I'd assume they might find a different way to get those employees the 300 miles from Chicago to Louisville instead of dragging passengers out of a seat. Renting a car and telling them to drive 5 hours is probably a whole lot cheaper than the $3200+ you were going to pay to bump people... heck, rent them an Uber and give each employee $500 each to make that grueling 5 hour car ride at that point.

I also think we all can agree the biggest mistake here on their part was United allowing people to board then trying to pull tickets. I've always known the danger with overbooking and been in plenty of airport lounges where they're going through the process to get people to give up their seat, but I honestly assumed that once you had a boarding pass with a seat number you were golden unless you chose to give it up. Let alone were physically sitting on the plane.

I don't disagree with you. I wasn't very clear. I was thinking about the moments following when airport security appeared. Up to that point, he's got options. After that point, there's no endgame that works out in his immediate favor.

Up to that point, gouge the airline for all you get out of them, by all means.

I'm not condoning the airline or the security team's actions at all. I'm merely suggesting that at some point, the passenger let stubbornness get in the way of good judgment...unless he was already thinking far enough ahead to predict that he'd have grounds for a lawsuit. If the latter was the case, I can appreciate a guy who goes all in on a long con and is willing to take the short term consequences for the bigger payout.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm confused by the narrative of this story too. I get being upset with United for overbooking. I get people saying they'd never fly United for not offering more for a customer to leave. Heck, if I was booted from a flight, I'd never fly that airline again.

But that guy has no right to sit on that plane. He was trespassing. He was belligerent. You can argue that the response was over-the-top, but that sometimes happens when you put yourself in a violent confrontation in a closed space.

Those who are defending this guy, what do you think should happen? That if you just say no you can fly wherever you want? That someone else has to get kicked off? It's a shitty situation to boot someone from a flight but someone had to go in that situation.

I think when people spend good money on any sort ticket they expect to have it redeemed. They don't expect that you'll be denied the service you thought you paid for and be roughed up by jack booted thugs.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

I definitely wouldn't want that guy performing a surgery on me. (Though I wonder if he's really a doctor, it's interesting that we haven't heard from him, or even learned his identity).

I've been wondering if the doctor claim is true too.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm confused by the narrative of this story too. I get being upset with United for overbooking. I get people saying they'd never fly United for not offering more for a customer to leave. Heck, if I was booted from a flight, I'd never fly that airline again.

But that guy has no right to sit on that plane. He was trespassing. He was belligerent. You can argue that the response was over-the-top, but that sometimes happens when you put yourself in a violent confrontation in a closed space.

Those who are defending this guy, what do you think should happen? That if you just say no you can fly wherever you want? That someone else has to get kicked off? It's a shitty situation to boot someone from a flight but someone had to go in that situation.

Maybe the United employees they were making room for should have found a different option?

Yeah, United was fully within their legal rights in this situation. Doesn't mean they didn't handle it idioticly

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Maybe the United employees they were making room for should have found a different option?

Yeah, United was fully within their legal rights in this situation. Doesn't mean they didn't handle it idioticly

Someone mentioned, on another site, that the employees union allows for them to have preferential boarding when it's business related to airfare. I haven't seen it verified anywhere but that would be a logical reason why