Man forcibly dragged off plane after refusing to give up seat to United employee

[Madelaine Amee]

Has anyone else seen this story? I cannot believe United can get away with this treatment of a passenger. They physically pulled him out of his seat and dragged him by his ankles off the plane! There is a video online that is very disturbing. I imagine his lawsuit will be substantial.

He said he was a doctor and had to get back to his patients. Supposedly he was allowed back on the plane with blood on his face. What on earth is going on in this world of ours - have we all gone crazy?

Just recently someone mentioned flying to Australia on United and I suggested they look for another flight.

[dewilson58]

I saw it..............trying to decide if it's real and if it is..........what is the whole story.

[raynan]

I thought the same thing. There has to be more to the story or United is in for a big lawsuit.

[lanabanana73]

I'm pretty sure they should just "write the check"!!

[Taltarzac725]

United Airlines passenger dragged off overbooked flight after refusing to give up seat - National | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/3368276/united-airlines-passenger-dragged-off-overbooked-flight-after-refusing-to-give-up-seat/)

Strange happenings.

[EPutnam1863]

None of this would have happened if the passenger agreed to get off when ordered even if he was right. After all he could have been a terrorist, who knows?

[Paper1]

I believe they said flight was overbooked with no takers for a later flight. Picked name by random, according to what I heard. Should airline held up flight until he walked off on his own? Mistake made was letting him back on plane once decision was made. Overbooking is a fact of life, tickets and cancelations would be much more expensive without it.

[Love2Swim]

Yes, overbooking is a fact of life, that doesn't make it right. If I pay $600 for a ticket, purchase it well in advance, I get to the airport on time, etc., I expect to have a seat on the plane. You make all your plans, and sometimes they can't be changed. This happened to me a couple of years ago, I was bumped from a United flight and unable to get a rescheduled flight until a few days later. This was to go to my son's wedding! I ended up paying a hefty price for a last minute ticket on another airline. This is wrong on so many levels.

[ColdNoMore]

Yes, overbooking is a fact of life, that doesn't make it right. If I pay $600 for a ticket, purchase it well in advance, I get to the airport on time, etc., I expect to have a seat on the plane. You make all your plans, and sometimes they can't be changed. This happened to me a couple of years ago, I was bumped from a United flight and unable to get a rescheduled flight until a few days later. This was to go to my son's wedding! I ended up paying a hefty price for a last minute ticket on another airline.

This is wrong on so many levels.

:agree:

While overbooking is a fact of life these days, when it happens and no one steps forward immediately, the airline should suck it up and keep raising the offer...for volunteers to take another flight.

At some point, when the incentive is high enough...someone will volunteer to get off.

[Abby10]

So call me stupid for not understanding, but if there are no takers, why is anyone that is already seated forced to give up their seat? Why aren't the passengers who are still waiting to get on the plane the ones to be bumped?

[Bonny]

So call me stupid for not understanding, but if there are no takers, why is anyone that is already seated forced to give up their seat? Why aren't the passengers who are still waiting to get on the plane the ones to be bumped?
They chose names at random & he was one of them.

[ColdNoMore]

They chose names at random & he was one of them.

Remind me to be appreciative, that my last name isn't...'Random.'




:D

[Abby10]

They chose names at random & he was one of them.

Thanks, Bonny, I understand that, but why was anyone chosen? If no one volunteered, why should anyone who has already boarded be forced to leave for someone else who most likely arrived at the airport late? If no one volunteers, why not just offer the vouchers to those who came late? Just trying to understand why this had to happen at all.

[Kannon451]

The seats were needed for another United Airlines flight crew to staff a flight leaving from the destination of this one.

[jnieman]

I have been bumped before for a flight crew. I heard they upped the offer to $800 and an overnight hotel. The man said he was a doctor and had patients to see the next day. I read somewhere that the police are the ones who dragged him off the flight.

[EPutnam1863]

:agree:

While overbooking is a fact of life these days, when it happens and no one steps forward immediately, the airline should suck it up and keep raising the offer...for volunteers to take another flight.

At some point, when the incentive is high enough...someone will volunteer to get off.

Excellent. That is what my husband and I did several years ago; the incentive was so good that we accepted it and had to wait only two more hours for another flight.

[redwitch]

Sadly, United has the legal right to remove passengers. As a matter of fact, the crew can have anyone removed for any reason, should they so desire. (Southwest wins the award for most removed passengers.)

The security officer (not police) has been suspended for the way this was handled. The odds are the doctor will probably sue. I'm not convinced he would necessarily win if it would go to trial, but the odds are it will settle out of court. Twas an ugly scene but a legal action.

[Edjkoz]

Strange the United didn't know that these pilots had to be on the flight and then they could have handled it at the gate before boarding. It was handled very poorly

[kstew43]

The seats were needed for another United Airlines flight crew to staff a flight leaving from the destination of this one.

not the passengers problem.....

they should of rescheduled the flight crew.....not the paying passengers....

[Kannon451]

not the passengers problem.....

they should of rescheduled the flight crew.....not the paying passengers....

No flight crew, nobody sitting on the plane the crew needed to get to, goes anywhere. Make four passengers mad or two hundred?
Guess who gets the seat...?
Not a difficult decision for a company.
Its not right, It's not the passengers fault but Like it or not, ultimately it was the passengers problem.
It should have been handled better than it was.

[CFrance]

Overbooking... Only on an airline can they sell you something they have no intention of delivering!

[biker1]

United should have kept increasing the compensation for volunteering to give up your seat until they had a sufficient number of volunteers instead of randomly choosing passengers to displace. At some point, the compensation will get high enough that they will get a sufficient number of volunteers. I have seen it go to $1500. In the "good old days" before airlines became better at over booking, I would offer my seat, just in case it was needed, as soon as I got to the gate. I received quite a few free travel vouchers over the years for very little disruption of my travel plans.

not the passengers problem.....

they should of rescheduled the flight crew.....not the paying passengers....

[biker1]

It really doesn't work that way and I have seen hotels do it also. The airlines know, statistically, how many "no shows" they will have. Overbooking is a way to decrease the number of empty seats. They fully intend to get you to your destination. When it is done correctly, everybody wins, and is happy. In the small percentage of cases where they actually need people to give up their seats, they compensate them, and rebook them on the next available flight. It is best done by getting volunteers, who are usually overjoyed to give up their seats in exchange for compensation.

Overbooking... Only on an airline can they sell you something they have no intention of delivering!

[rivaridger1]

Am I missing something ? You know four of your employees have to be on this flight. You know their whereabouts ( i.e. in the terminal or just debarking from their previous flight, meaning you know they will be able to catch this flight to get to where they are needed ) Computers can tell you where they are every minute they work for you. Under those circumstances, why board the flight and sit a body in every seat ? If United knew it needed four seats for crew members why did they not simply reserve them and not sit someone else down in them ? This is a question a lawyer will ask and it will seem awfully logical to anyone listening including a member of a jury if it gets that far. ( It will not ) The doctor, if indeed the passenger was one, is going to be able to pay of any remaining student loan debt and buy a much bigger house after this one hits the civil legal system.

[dewilson58]

Sadly, United has the legal right to remove passengers. As a matter of fact, the crew can have anyone removed for any reason, should they so desire. (Southwest wins the award for most removed passengers.)

The security officer (not police) has been suspended for the way this was handled. The odds are the doctor will probably sue. I'm not convinced he would necessarily win if it would go to trial, but the odds are it will settle out of court. Twas an ugly scene but a legal action.

I think it was the police..............Chicago Aviation Police, which is a division of the Chicago Police Department. Fact check me.............but this is my understanding.

A lawsuit will obviously pull in United Airlines, but they followed the "contract" with the ticket holder........how the passenger was ejected maybe of question.

[Madelaine Amee]

Am I missing something ? You know four of your employees have to be on this flight. You know their whereabouts ( i.e. in the terminal or just debarking from their previous flight, meaning you know they will be able to catch this flight to get to where they are needed ) Computers can tell you where they are every minute they work for you. Under those circumstances, why board the flight and sit a body in every seat ? If United knew it needed four seats for crew members why did they not simply reserve them and not sit someone else down in them ? This is a question a lawyer will ask and it will seem awfully logical to anyone listening including a member of a jury if it gets that far. ( It will not ) The doctor, if indeed the passenger was one, is going to be able to pay of any remaining student loan debt and buy a much bigger house after this one hits the civil legal system.

IMHO great post, but you are assuming too much. You are assuming that the people in charge of booking this flight had commonsense, quite obviously they did not and, unfortunately, lack of commonsense seems to be pervasive in our lives right now.

[Bonny]

I'm assuming that until everyone checks in at the gate to board the plane, they don't know if everyone will show.

[blueash]

I think it was the police..............Chicago Aviation Police, which is a division of the Chicago Police Department. Fact check me.............but this is my understanding.

A lawsuit will obviously pull in United Airlines, but they followed the "contract" with the ticket holder........how the passenger was ejected maybe of question.

Yes it was the aviation police. And the regular Chicago police department got involved in explaining the incident and tweeted that the "69 year old Asian" "fell"
If you watch video it certainly does not look like the man "fell". And what his ethnicity had to do with the situation escapes me.

As to whether United acted in conformity with their contract is a legal question. You can read the contract (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25), it has language about refusing to board passengers on oversold flights in rule 25, but that language all applies to BEFORE boarding. It seems once you are seated they must fly you unless rule 21 is invoked. There is nothing in rule 21 about overbooked removals. You are always required to follow the reasonable orders of the flight crew as to not endanger safety. [turn off your cell phone, put on your seat belt].

I would believe that removing a passenger for the convenience of the airline is not a safety issue. United had multiple other ways to get its crew to Louisville including simply driving them [under 5 hours drive time]. United failed to utilize any of several none-forceful methods to get its crew to Louisville and therefore is likely to not only loose in the court of public opinion [watch their stock go down today] but also in a court of law. Delta recently paid a family of three, $11,000 to give up seats on a flight. If United had upped their offer until they had 4 volunteers it would have avoided all this mess.

[NotFromAroundHere]

Am I missing something ? You know four of your employees have to be on this flight. You know their whereabouts ( i.e. in the terminal or just debarking from their previous flight, meaning you know they will be able to catch this flight to get to where they are needed ) Computers can tell you where they are every minute they work for you. Under those circumstances, why board the flight and sit a body in every seat ? If United knew it needed four seats for crew members why did they not simply reserve them and not sit someone else down in them ? This is a question a lawyer will ask and it will seem awfully logical to anyone listening including a member of a jury if it gets that far. ( It will not ) The doctor, if indeed the passenger was one, is going to be able to pay of any remaining student loan debt and buy a much bigger house after this one hits the civil legal system.

It is very possible that you are missing something. We don't know why a relief crew was needed. We don't know when United/Republic found out they needed a relief crew. We don't know that the crew was needed in Louisville, or if that was just a connection to somewhere else. We don't know how long it took to determine that the best course of action was to fly a crew from Chicago to Louisville (and perhaps on from there). We don't know when the gate agents got the word that they needed 4 seats on the flight to Louisville. We don't know how that need was expressed to the agents in Chicago.

[spd2918]

I hate to comment until all the facts are in, but for the sake of discussion I will:

When you choose to fly, you voluntarily enter into an agreement with the service provider. You agree to follow the airline's rules and bumping proceedures. That's all you need to know. Once it was determined that this man was no longer able to take that flight he should have exited like a man, not a baby that must be drug off. He alone chose how he was going to leave the plane.

Police force is often not pretty. That's why society pays others to do it. Just remember the force is determined by the subject. I doubt the police just walked up and beat him up for fun. I also doubt the doctor line. If he is a doctor, are there no other doctors at his facility?

I avoid these airline problems by driving my truck when I travel. But even then I must play by the rules and I have no right to resist if I break those rules.

[Steve9930]

Has anyone else seen this story? I cannot believe United can get away with this treatment of a passenger. They physically pulled him out of his seat and dragged him by his ankles off the plane! There is a video online that is very disturbing. I imagine his lawsuit will be substantial.

He said he was a doctor and had to get back to his patients. Supposedly he was allowed back on the plane with blood on his face. What on earth is going on in this world of ours - have we all gone crazy?

Just recently someone mentioned flying to Australia on United and I suggested they look for another flight.

It was incredible how short sighted United was in this instance. As I understand it United offered up to $800 for volunteers. There were no takers. United could have offered more, all the way up to $1300 but did not. The drive to where the plane was going was only 290 miles. The flight crew was not needed until the next day. Why would you throw paying passengers off a plane to move your own employees when they could have driven? I will never fly this airline again.

[Steve9930]

Allegiant does not over book.....

[Steve9930]

There is absolutely no reason to over book flights. Airlines should treat flights just like cruise lines treat cabins. You bought it, its yours. If you don't show up, tough luck unless you buy insurance. Then this does not happen. If you need to move a flight crew then those seats do not get sold. This is all about greed by the airlines and enough stroke in Washington to make it happen. So the little guy takes the beating. Vote with your wallet and his changes!

[baustgen]

Not following legal instructions by the flight crew is cause for consequences. Flying is a priveledge, not a right. Hooray for United.

[graciegirl]

Not following legal instructions by the flight crew is cause for consequences. Flying is a priveledge, not a right. Hooray for United.

I agree. There has to be more to the story than this. When a person of authority asks you to leave, I think you should leave.

[tom g]

:bigbow: for United..United bumped.0004..%of it's passagers last year, that is a great record. .And for all of the people who say sue ..Shows how much you know...airlines do a great job and for all of you people who fly up north for $100 and complain ...And think the airline should kiss your ---nothing to stop you from driving... Read the airline rules and their rights before make statements. As for the person who supposedly is a doctor and was chosen because he was Chinese. I would not care if you were the Pope. When a person on authority tell you to get off.......Get off.

[dewilson58]

More details of the doctor are coming out.............trading drugs for sex.

What will we learn tomorrow???

:popcorn:

[graciegirl]

More details of the doctor are coming out.............trading drugs for sex.

What will we learn tomorrow???

:popcorn:

Say WHAT? The fellow who was dragged out? He is a slimy soul? How'd they know? Who knew? How did they know?

Come on kiddo... tell us more.

[dewilson58]

Obviously I can't verify, but I can share what is being reported...................

According to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, Dao was arrested in 2003 on the drug-related offenses following an undercover investigation.

The board’s probe into the criminal charges found that Dao became sexually interested in a male patient, Brian Case, whom he gave a physical examination to, including a genital examination, and whom he eventually made his office manager.

Case quit that job due to “inappropriate” remarks made by Dao, who then pursued him and arranged to give him prescription drugs in exchange for sexual acts, according to the documents, filed last year.

In 2004, Dao was convicted on a slew of felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud or deceit and was later placed on five years of supervised probation, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

[graciegirl]

///

[dewilson58]

United passenger traded drugs for gay sex with patient | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401980/Dr-dragged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html)

I am not sure of the Daily Mail Online. I am sure of Reuters...I will see what they say.


Wow..............if I read that article correctly, the Drugs for Sex doctor assaulted / attempted to assault the police officer. That's a whole new arena of law......Newton's Third Law.

[graciegirl]

Wow..............if I read that article correctly, the Drugs for Sex doctor assaulted / attempted to assault the police officer. That's a whole new arena of law......Newton's Third Law.

I try to find valid and believable sources for news and never am really sure of who and what to trust. I quoted a local Fox affiliate, after I removed the source I had quoted before, above.

WHO KNOWS? One title on the MSN "My FEED" said;

"Did they remove Doctor because he was Asian?" I thought that wasn't likely. I hate that you can't trust many news sources anymore.

[CFrance]

It really doesn't work that way and I have seen hotels do it also. The airlines know, statistically, how many "no shows" they will have. Overbooking is a way to decrease the number of empty seats. They fully intend to get you to your destination. When it is done correctly, everybody wins, and is happy. In the small percentage of cases where they actually need people to give up their seats, they compensate them, and rebook them on the next available flight. It is best done by getting volunteers, who are usually overjoyed to give up their seats in exchange for compensation.
You can spin it however you want, but in the end there is no guarantee you will get what you paid for. I can attest, as one who has been severely disrupted by this overbooking process. Money isn't everything. You book a flight and pay for it. You book a certain time and destination. It is not guaranteed to be delivered. Overbooking is wrong.

[Carla B]

Overbooking is a policy that needs to be addressed. And yet, if we buy a ticket but can't use it at the designated time, we are severely penalized by most airlines.

There is no excuse for an airline not having plans on how to move flight crews to the right place at the right time. They have the data they need to accomplish this, and it should have been handled at the gate, not after boarding.

[joldnol]

None of this would have happened if the passenger agreed to get off when ordered even if he was right. After all he could have been a terrorist, who knows?

Bull he got bumped because they needed to fly 4 employees. All they had to do is offer fair compensation and they would have had 4 willing volunteers. I'm sorry but if your butt is seated on the plane, it is a United problem and not the passenger. Glad they took a billion dollar bath today.

[DonH57]

Who knows the whole story. I thought the gentleman made have had some personal issues or other problem by his behavior. The only thing I do know is I was watching a news piece where they talked about reading the fine print on your tickets and boarding passes anytime you purchase a ticket.

[Edjkoz]

I am amazed at how the public has just accepted the overbooking policies of airlines. We say that's the rules; that's the way it is; fares for all you f us would be more expensive. I worked in the airline industry for 35 years and I always believed that when you put your hard earned money out for a ticket, the seat should be confirmed.

[biker1]

There is no spin - only a statement of fact. Your chances of being involuntarily bumped from a flight are extremely small; about 1 in 10,000, averaged across the major carriers. Approximately 8 times as many people volunteer to be bumped than are involuntarily bumped. I have flown several million miles, a good portion internationally, and I have never been involuntarily bumped. I have volunteered my seat in overbooked situations numerous times and have been compensated extremely well. Weather or mechanical issues are much more likely to prevent you from reaching your destination on time. The contractual terms of your airline ticket are available before you buy it. There is no "right" or "wrong" - only the terms you agreed to when you bought the ticket. If you don't like the terms then you are free to pay for a private charter. However, mechanical and weather problems can still impact you.

You can spin it however you want, but in the end there is no guarantee you will get what you paid for. I can attest, as one who has been severely disrupted by this overbooking process. Money isn't everything. You book a flight and pay for it. You book a certain time and destination. It is not guaranteed to be delivered. Overbooking is wrong.

[CFrance]

There is no spin - only a statement of fact. Your chances of being involuntarily bumped from a flight are extremely small; about 1 in 10,000, averaged across the major carriers. Approximately 8 times as many people volunteer to be bumped than are involuntarily bumped. I have flown several million miles, a good portion internationally, and I have never been involuntarily bumped. I have volunteered my seat in overbooked situations numerous times and have been compensated extremely well. Weather or mechanical issues are much more likely to prevent you from reaching your destination on time. The contractual terms of your airline ticket are available before you buy it. There is no "right" or "wrong" - only the terms you agreed to when you bought the ticket. If you don't like the terms then you are free to pay for a private charter. However, mechanical and weather problems can still impact you.
I have to disagree on a certain level, from a consumer's point of view. There are recent rules that been made that airlines can no longer sequester people on the runway for more than a certain period because it's more convenient for them. There could surely be rules against overbooking.

I and my husband have also traveled millions of miles and many years international both for business and pleasure. But you and I rarely agree on anything. So there you are. I'm not going to argue over something that is just one person's opinion vs. another's

[Paper1]

Once again Americans are picking their heros poorly, this Dr is no hero. Agreed it was very unfortunate his number came up but his actions and the sensational way the story was presented by media has elevated him to sainthood with attorneys lined up 4 deep to "make him whole" against the airline industry. Kind of like David and Goliath. I think I'll wait for a different hero.

[rubicon]

In any business supposedly it is a good faith transaction of an exchange of money for services/product provided.

The rule to allow an airline the benefit of overbooking with their option to bump a person who in good faith paid for the seat their sitting in is wrong on all levels.

If airlines are concerned about not leaving a tarmac fully loaded then there are other ways to deal with the issue.

In this case the reason was a flight crew needed to be somewhere else/ well then its your problem airline so why don't you have a working plan with others such as a helicopter ride for the crew?

It was predicable that if this passenger had any personal discrepancy it would be well publicized because this airline stands to lose millions here.

In law the rule is you take the plaintiff as you find him. what this guy did or did not do has no bearing on the actions of the airline. People ought to be outraged that any person was treated in manner this man was and for such a ridiculous reason . I mean he wasn't a potential terrorist.

United deserves what it is about to get. Lucky for them I will not be on that jury.

Personal Best Regards:

[ColdNoMore]

I have to disagree on a certain level, from a consumer's point of view. There are recent rules that been made that airlines can no longer sequester people on the runway for more than a certain period because it's more convenient for them. There could surely be rules against overbooking.

I and my husband have also traveled millions of miles and many years international both for business and pleasure. But you and I rarely agree on anything. So there you are. I'm not going to argue over something that is just one person's opinion vs. another's

Another common sense post! :thumbup:

I predict that just like the legislation you mentioned, new laws will be enacted to protect citizens...from this abhorrent action ever being taken again. :mad:

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who seem to immediately jump to the defense of big companies....instead of their fellow citizens. :ohdear:

[biker1]

I am not stating an opinion. I am only stating the facts. I leave the pontification to others.

I have to disagree on a certain level, from a consumer's point of view. There are recent rules that been made that airlines can no longer sequester people on the runway for more than a certain period because it's more convenient for them. There could surely be rules against overbooking.

I and my husband have also traveled millions of miles and many years international both for business and pleasure. But you and I rarely agree on anything. So there you are. I'm not going to argue over something that is just one person's opinion vs. another's

[biker1]

The question of whether United Airlines violated the terms of the ticket (a civil case) and/or broke some laws (a criminal case) may very well play out in court. Clearly they behaved badly and there might be some short term financial consequences as the bad PR will probably cost them some ticket sales. This is an isolated event and all of the facts have yet to be uncovered. The sky isn't falling.


Another common sense post! :thumbup:

I predict that just like the legislation you mentioned, new laws will be enacted to protect citizens...from this abhorrent action ever being taken again. :mad:

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who seem to immediately jump to the defense of big companies....instead of their fellow citizens. :ohdear:

[ajbrown]

No matter if United is in the 'right' based on contract or law, as others have stated they handled this extremely poorly. As the situation presented itself they had the ability to raise the 'offer to give up seat' to $1300.

I would be surprised if they would not get a hit at $1000, $1100, etc.

That said, when this all blows over, my fear is the airlines solution for the good of the customer is to SELL a 'bump free' seat for an extra $50 :ohdear:

PS What is the old expression, 'poor planning on your part (United) does not constitute an...'

[Madelaine Amee]

In any business supposedly it is a good faith transaction of an exchange of money for services/product provided.

The rule to allow an airline the benefit of overbooking with their option to bump a person who in good faith paid for the seat their sitting in is wrong on all levels.

If airlines are concerned about not leaving a tarmac fully loaded then there are other ways to deal with the issue.

In this case the reason was a flight crew needed to be somewhere else/ well then its your problem airline so why don't you have a working plan with others such as a helicopter ride for the crew?

It was predicable that if this passenger had any personal discrepancy it would be well publicized because this airline stands to lose millions here.

In law the rule is you take the plaintiff as you find him. what this guy did or did not do has no bearing on the actions of the airline. People ought to be outraged that any person was treated in manner this man was and for such a ridiculous reason . I mean he wasn't a potential terrorist.

United deserves what it is about to get. Lucky for them I will not be on that jury.

Personal Best Regards:

Great post and I thank you for putting it in black and white. I was appalled when I saw the news media and posters on here immediately dragging up his past. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with how he was treated by this airline. In a court of law his past would not be admissible. He was injured and dragged by his feet off a plane - and that is all we should be concerned with!

[Jima64]

People keep stating "overbooking" by the airline. There was no overbooking for the flight and they only needed to move employees to another city.

[graciegirl]

Here is my summary.

There is something wrong with United's PR and policies.

and

There is something real wrong with that guy.

[Madelaine Amee]

Here is my summary.

There is something wrong with United's PR and policies.

and

There is something real wrong with that guy.

And again, I state, that has NOTHING to do with his treatment by United!

[suebu]

Same situation happened to our kids two years ago heading back from here to home. United was going to bump two out of a family of four, and my daughter-in-law came unglued, as she is not a great flyer, and having to be split up from hubby, each taking a kid, it wasn't clear to her why.....agent at desk told her since no one volunteered, they were "chosen" since their tickets were purchased so far in advance, and cheaper than many others....Really? isn't that the goal.....purchase far out, get the best price, etc? Finally, at last minute, someone volunteered, and they were all able to travel together. writing to airlines after the fact only produced a more frustrating response than a comforting one. I know it can happen on any airline, but the way it's handled is the key to customer satisfaction and minimizing the passenger's nervousness and frustration. I think Southwest does it best

[biker1]

There is no difference, there are not enough seats, and somebody is getting bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

People keep stating "overbooking" by the airline. There was no overbooking for the flight and they only needed to move employees to another city.

[golfing eagles]

Not that it is at all relevant to the case, but I'd like to know what kind of "doctor" this 60+ man who threw a 2 year old's temper tantrum is.

My other concern was the involvement of a branch of the Chicago police getting involved. If I were this passenger and LEO's showed up, I would ask them what CRIME I committed, what LAW I was breaking. Since I would be a ticketed passenger in my seat minding my own business, the answer is NONE. The "fine print" and "rules" on the ticket is a contractual arrangement and therefore a CIVIL matter. The police should have informed both parties that they should work it out in civil court and left. Then , if UAL EMPLOYEES forcibly removed me, we could add another zero to the settlement check.

[graciegirl]

And again, I state, that has NOTHING to do with his treatment by United!

You are right. My husband dislikes United for all kinds of reasons. We had this discussion and he was very adamant about the situation but he admitted that he might be furious, feel terribly wronged, voice his disapproval, ask for two thousand bucks. etc. etc. but he did say, what I knew; that he would have got up and walked off when the police came.

Most of us would have walked off when confronted with the police, even if they were wrong. Most of us would be furious, fuming, vowing to get even, get revenge, get money, get attention, get a bucket of blood...but we would have walked off.

Just like most of us wouldn't wear furry hats at a women's march.

[biker1]

If spending a good portion of my career sitting on airplanes has taught me anything, it is that you don't, under any circumstance, argue with airline personnel when you are on a plane. When you are on a plane, you do as you are told. While you have certain rights, you have no leverage at that time. If they tell you to vacate your seat, you gather your belongings and you leave, period. Once off the plane, you can then negotiate with the gate personnel or other representatives as to how they will get you to your final destination and what compensation you will receive. Remembering that you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" often goes a long ways in getting better treatment once you are off the plane. I wish I had a nickle for every time I have seen an irate passenger giving a gate agent a hard time, to what will probably be their detriment. If you are unhappy, you can consult with a lawyer afterwards. You also don't argue with TSA personnel. Remember, airline and TSA personnel can cause you to have a bad day and the onus will be on you to seek remedy.

In any business supposedly it is a good faith transaction of an exchange of money for services/product provided.

The rule to allow an airline the benefit of overbooking with their option to bump a person who in good faith paid for the seat their sitting in is wrong on all levels.

If airlines are concerned about not leaving a tarmac fully loaded then there are other ways to deal with the issue.

In this case the reason was a flight crew needed to be somewhere else/ well then its your problem airline so why don't you have a working plan with others such as a helicopter ride for the crew?

It was predicable that if this passenger had any personal discrepancy it would be well publicized because this airline stands to lose millions here.

In law the rule is you take the plaintiff as you find him. what this guy did or did not do has no bearing on the actions of the airline. People ought to be outraged that any person was treated in manner this man was and for such a ridiculous reason . I mean he wasn't a potential terrorist.

United deserves what it is about to get. Lucky for them I will not be on that jury.

Personal Best Regards:

[golfing eagles]

If spending a good portion of my career sitting on airplanes has taught me anything, it is that you don't, under any circumstance, argue with airline personnel when you are on a plane. When you are on a plane, you do as you are told. If they tell you to vacate your seat, you gather your belongings and you leave, period. Once off the plane, you can then negotiate with the gate personnel or other representatives as to how they will get you to your final destination and what compensation you will receive. If you are unhappy, you can consult with a lawyer. You also don't argue with TSA personnel. These people can cause you to have a bad day.

That is great common sense advice. But to play devil's advocate, what makes airline personnel any different than the manager of McDonald's or the gate attendant at Belvedere Blvd??? Why are they "above" a discussion/argument??? What LEGAL, not civil authority do they have??? The captain has 100% total authority on that plane, ONCE IT LEAVES THE TERMINAL. Is that true while it is attached to the terminal via the jetway??? Why are the Chicago police involved in a civil matter? A lot of questions remain.

UAL has some responsibility here as well---bumping seated passengers for a flight crew for the next day??? This was the ONLY crew they could get there??? There was no other way to get them there??? Other flights, other airlines???? Sounds like bad management decisions. I once sat on a plane for over an hour, 200 feet from the terminal at O'Hare , watching my connecting flight take off. This was because "our" gate was occupied, even though there were 11 empty gates that remained empty for the whole time we sat there. Didn't any one think to call the airport manager to change the gate??? I suspect that the average airline employee couldn't care less---travelers, especially at an airport connecting to another flight, are a population of hostages.

[Steve9930]

You are not supposed to board if your going to be bumped. United terms of carriage state exactly that fact. So United did not even follow their own policy. Second the drive from Chicago to Louisville is 5 1/2 hours. United should have chartered a shuttle for their crew since they were not scheduled to fly until the next day. United lost $1 Billion in value because of this incident. Pays for a lot of shuttles. United could have offered more then $800. There was a number where you would have convinced 4 people to get off the plane. The police officer has already been suspended for his action. Excessive force was used. Just from this man's screams I could tel there was a possible mental problem here. United is the big looser here and this man will be getting a very nice check from the suit. The last thing I will say on this matter is this man's past has nothing to do with how he was treated and to bring that into the picture is not a negative on him but a negative on the person who even thinks this is a mitigating circumstance. What is wrong with you people? Stick to the facts of what happened.

[biker1]

The big difference between United Airlines and McDonalds is you are trying to get to your destination and you have already paid for the ticket. Airline personnel can remove you from the plane at the gate for a number of reasons. Whether it is justified or not is irrelevant - you are off the plane and you may very well experience a delay in getting to your final destination. Your other questions will undoubtedly be answered in the week/months ahead but honestly I don't really care.

The person in question made a big mistake by not doing what he was told. Unless, of course, his goal was to get a big settlement from United, which he may very well get. United, of course, made some serious mistakes also. You cannot win those battles and negotiate while sitting on the plane. Rational people get off the plane and resolve the issue with other airline representatives. Knowing the compensation rules and the airline's responsibilities is always a good idea. By the way, I have missed more connections than I care to think about for various reasons. I have also not even bothered to take the first leg of several trips when it became apparent that I would miss the connection. Weather, mechanical problems, air traffic control issues, lack of a crew, etc. can cause delays that cause you to miss connections. It is what it is.

That is great common sense advice. But to play devil's advocate, what makes airline personnel any different than the manager of McDonald's or the gate attendant at Belvedere Blvd??? Why are they "above" a discussion/argument??? What LEGAL, not civil authority do they have??? The captain has 100% total authority on that plane, ONCE IT LEAVES THE TERMINAL. Is that true while it is attached to the terminal via the jetway??? Why are the Chicago police involved in a civil matter? A lot of questions remain.

UAL has some responsibility here as well---bumping seated passengers for a flight crew for the next day??? This was the ONLY crew they could get there??? There was no other way to get them there??? Other flights, other airlines???? Sounds like bad management decisions. I once sat on a plane for over an hour, 200 feet from the terminal at O'Hare , watching my connecting flight take off. This was because "our" gate was occupied, even though there were 11 empty gates that remained empty for the whole time we sat there. Didn't any one think to call the airport manager to change the gate??? I suspect that the average airline employee couldn't care less---travelers, especially at an airport connecting to another flight, are a population of hostages.

[rivaridger1]

Here is a quote yesterday from Oscar Munos who is United Airlines Chief operating Officer. " The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us : outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened ". I'd say he might actually be a smart man, since he was " counseled " on this matter by several members of United's Board of Directors, who I would suspect, are also very smart men and women. There is no longer any attempt to justify the actions of United by citing the term of the contract of carriage in these words. In my opinion this kind of says it all. For those that have done so on this thread, you can not be stupid when enforcing the terms of any contract and cause personal injury to people. You can also not be stupid when exercising police authority and unnecessarily cause injury to people. Our society and civil justice system does not permit that.

[biker1]

The stock is already rebounding and this whole sorry incident will be forgotten. Until you sell the stock, it is just bits on a computer.

You are not supposed to board if your going to be bumped. United terms of carriage state exactly that fact. So United did not even follow their own policy. Second the drive from Chicago to Louisville is 5 1/2 hours. United should have chartered a shuttle for their crew since they were not scheduled to fly until the next day. United lost $1 Billion in value because of this incident. Pays for a lot of shuttles. United could have offered more then $800. There was a number where you would have convinced 4 people to get off the plane. The police officer has already been suspended for his action. Excessive force was used. Just from this man's screams I could tel there was a possible mental problem here. United is the big looser here and this man will be getting a very nice check from the suit. The last thing I will say on this matter is this man's past has nothing to do with how he was treated and to bring that into the picture is not a negative on him but a negative on the person who even thinks this is a mitigating circumstance. What is wrong with you people? Stick to the facts of what happened.

[golfing eagles]

The big difference between United Airlines and McDonalds is you are trying to get to your destination and you have already paid for the ticket. Airline personnel can remove you from the plane at the gate for a number of reasons. Whether it is justified or not is irrelevant - you are off the plane and you may very well experience a delay in getting to your final destination. Your other questions will undoubtedly be answered in the week/months ahead but honestly I don't really care.

The person in question made a big mistake by not doing what he was told. Unless, of course, his goal was to get a big settlement from United, which he may very well get. United, of course, made some serious mistakes also. You cannot win those battles and negotiate while sitting on the plane. Rational people get off the plane and resolve the issue with other airline representatives. Knowing the compensation rules and the airline's responsibilities is always a good idea. By the way, I have missed more connections than I care to think about for various reasons. I have also not even bothered to take the first leg of several trips when it became apparent that I would miss the connection. Weather, mechanical problems, air traffic control issues, lack of a crew, etc. can cause delays that cause you to miss connections. It is what it is.

I agree with everything you posted---but I have one question---do airline employees have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to remove a passenger from his seat for no other reason than they want to put another airline employee in that seat?????

[Steve9930]

The stock is already rebounding and this whole sorry incident will be forgotten. Until you sell the stock, it is just bits on a computer.

Yes, the stock will rebound but the lost revenue will not.

[Madelaine Amee]

Here is a quote yesterday from Oscar Munos who is United Airlines Chief operating Officer. " The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us : outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened ". I'd say he might actually be a smart man, since he was " counseled " on this matter by several members of United's Board of Directors, who I would suspect, are also very smart men and women. There is no longer any attempt to justify the actions of United by citing the term of the contract of carriage in these words. In my opinion this kind of says it all. For those that have done so on this thread, you can not be stupid when enforcing the terms of any contract and cause personal injury to people. You can also not be stupid when exercising police authority and unnecessarily cause injury to people. Our society and civil justice system does not permit that.

Thank you for the "breath of fresh air", if we accept this type of treatment from the very people that we PAY to protect us and keep us safe, we are living in a George Orwellian paradise and not the "land of the free and the brave".

[biker1]

I don't know but I am sure that question will be explored in the legal proceedings that are certain to follow. My guess is their contract boilerplate covers any contingency you can imagine. However, at the time you are being told to vacate, it doesn't really matter. You really don't have any choice and your only option is to seek remedy after the fact. If it was me, I would get off the plane immediately and work the best deal I can, including being put on another airline, if that would get me to my destination sooner. The compensation will depend on how much of a delay you experience.

I agree with everything you posted---but I have one question---do airline employees have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to remove a passenger from his seat for no other reason than they want to put another airline employee in that seat?????

[biker1]

Yes, they will experience a short term financial impact from reduced ticket sales. In short order, however, people will go back to their normal buying habits of choosing United if they are the low cost carrier and/or they have lots of frequent flyer miles with United.

What I find most amazing is how long it took United to adopt the standard crisis management position: admit fault, apologize, and promise to put safeguards in place so this never happens again. You would think they would have learned from other corporations.


Yes, the stock will rebound but the lost revenue will not.

[Steve9930]

Yes, they will experience a short term financial impact from reduced ticket sales. In short order, however, people will go back to their normal buying habits of choosing United if they are the low cost carrier and/or they have lots of frequent flyer miles with United.

What I find most amazing is how long it took United to adopt the standard crisis management position: admit fault, apologize, and promise to put safeguards in place so this never happens again. You would think they would have learned from other corporations.

I could not agree more with your last post. When you look at the video you just are dumb founded. Really, they actually thought they were doing the correct thing? Then the CEO with his nonsense? I know the first thing that went through his mined, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$. The gentleman that was dragged off was definitely in a no win situation. You could also tell his response was not normal. When asked to leave the prudent thing is to get up, as you said and start the negotiations. He was entitled to 400% of the ticket cost since he would have been delayed more then 4 hours. You also can request Cash and not a voucher and they still have to get you to your destination. I've been in these situations before and you just have to one, know the regulations, and two stand your ground. But you do this after you get off the plane. This reminds me of Forest Gump: "Stupid is as Stupid Does." There was more then enough stupid that day by all involved.

[ajbrown]

A buddy just sent this. Likely folks have seen it. It gave me a chuckle, but my humor is warped...

Jimmy Kimmel Commercial On United Airlines Passenger Dragged Off United Flight - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI&app=desktop)

[DonH57]

A buddy just sent this. Likely folk shave seen it. It gave me a chuckle, but my humor is warped...

Jimmy Kimmel Commercial On United Airlines Passenger Dragged Off United Flight - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI&app=desktop)

I watched it as well. I too have a warped scense of humor.:D

[graciegirl]

I looked up Oscar Munoz because he is obviously a foot shooter. He is the oldest in his family of nine, and the first to attend College. Had a heart attack shortly after he took the position of President of United a couple years ago and has a heart transplant. He is married and has four children.

I don't think he is going to be President of United for much longer...just my guess.

[Steve9930]

I looked up Oscar Munoz because he is obviously a foot shooter. He is the oldest in his family of nine, and the first to attend College. Had a heart attack shortly after he took the position of President of United a couple years ago and has a heart transplant. He is married and has four children.

I don't think he is going to be President of United for much longer...just my guess.

I would agree. This was very poorly handled. Just the health portion is enough. I think he was caught off guard by the whole event. Everybody today just need to calm down.

[Henryk]

It is very possible that you are missing something. We don't know why a relief crew was needed. We don't know when United/Republic found out they needed a relief crew. We don't know that the crew was needed in Louisville, or if that was just a connection to somewhere else. We don't know how long it took to determine that the best course of action was to fly a crew from Chicago to Louisville (and perhaps on from there). We don't know when the gate agents got the word that they needed 4 seats on the flight to Louisville. We don't know how that need was expressed to the agents in Chicago.

And I DON'T CARE! If I were seated and they tried to take me off the plane, it wouldn't be a quiet encounter--I'd scream bloody murder. But I would deplane.

[cologal]

None of this would have happened if the passenger agreed to get off when ordered even if he was right. After all he could have been a terrorist, who knows?

He was not a terrorist! Next time you fly check the fine print on the ticket. All airlines have the right to remove from the plane for pretty much any reason at all and the can have you arrested and banned from that airline for life.

[cologal]

I believe they said flight was overbooked with no takers for a later flight. Picked name by random, according to what I heard. Should airline held up flight until he walked off on his own? Mistake made was letting him back on plane once decision was made. Overbooking is a fact of life, tickets and cancelations would be much more expensive without it.

It really wasn't an "overbooking" the flight was booked and the passengers on the plane when a flight crew of 4 came up and bumped 4 passengers of because they were needed to man a flight the next morning.

They offered $800.00 3 of the 4 took the money! They could have offered $1350.00 by law.

[Steve9930]

Why would you cause the commotion? I would terminate the employees on this flight. I would ask for the resignation of the CEO. The police officer is now suspended pending an investigation. There was absolutely no common sense exercised by this flight crew. Whoever the manager that was on duty should also be terminated. 5 1/2 hour drive by shuttle, really? I also would look at the next level of management because its evident he/she is not instilling the proper company values. Never, Never Never throw mama from the train! There is a camera everywhere! Let me get this through their heads, "There is a camera everywhere", what part of that did they not understand. The local employees do not even know their own rules. You do not board people and then take them off. You hold the boarding until you have 4 warm bodies, period. If you cannot handle such a simple common sense problem, what makes you think you can handle a real emergency. Totally unprofessional. There was a $$$$ number that would get you 4 warm bodies off that flight.

[joldnol]

Once again Americans are picking their heros poorly, this Dr is no hero. Agreed it was very unfortunate his number came up but his actions and the sensational way the story was presented by media has elevated him to sainthood with attorneys lined up 4 deep to "make him whole" against the airline industry. Kind of like David and Goliath. I think I'll wait for a different hero.

He is no hero but United is definitely the villain and were the party that was 100% wrong in this situation. They deserve the financial hit they are taking.

[rubicon]

One poster spoke of boilerplate contracts. another that you are at the mercy of an airline. yet another focuses on the individuals past.

It would seem as respects the legal/contractual/ aspect of an airline's legal right to overbook and the protocols that follow are really going to be tested given the potential money damages if this matter is decided in a courtroom. To be sure an attorney will tell you contracts were made to be broken.

There is something very wrong when a commercial business has the right under a situation such as this to have policing powers. This man was not a threat. He was not out of control. he was not suspected of being a terrorist. He reacted when provoked. Can the police be charged with assault and battery? I believe so.

He will not invoke a warm fuzzy feeling with a jury. However he had been judged, tried and paid for his past transgressions.

He can and should be judged and apportioned blame for any contributor negligence that he created to cause this situation.

Bottom line for me is that United had absolutely no right to accost this guy. If they had a problem getting a flight crew to another city then it was their problem to solve without disrupting customers who fulfilled their portion of the agreement. To suggest that a flight crew was more important than a paying customer flies in the face of common sense and good public relations

Personal Best Regards:

[Steve9930]

One poster spoke of boilerplate contracts. another that you are at the mercy of an airline. yet another focuses on the individuals past.

It would seem as respects the legal/contractual/ aspect of an airline's legal right to overbook and the protocols that follow are really going to be tested given the potential money damages if this matter is decided in a courtroom. To be sure an attorney will tell you contracts were made to be broken.

There is something very wrong when a commercial business has the right under a situation such as this to have policing powers. This man was not a threat. He was not out of control. he was not suspected of being a terrorist. He reacted when provoked. Can the police be charged with assault and battery? I believe so.

He will not invoke a warm fuzzy feeling with a jury. However he had been judged, tried and paid for his past transgressions.

He can and should be judged and apportioned blame for any contributor negligence that he created to cause this situation.

Bottom line for me is that United had absolutely no right to accost this guy. If they had a problem getting a flight crew to another city then it was their problem to solve without disrupting customers who fulfilled their portion of the agreement. To suggest that a flight crew was more important than a paying customer flies in the face of common sense and good public relations

Personal Best Regards:

Yep, its sure does. There goes the CEO's bonus this year. This is going to be a big big big check. I hear he is playing this to the hilt. Still in the hospital. There will be 6 zeros behind this number. Definitely will not need to work ever again.

[mickey100]

"If they had just tried some diplomacy, none of this had to take place," passenger John Klaasen told CNN. I agreee. As others have said, they could have offered more money to induce people to give up their seats. Very poorly managed, and United has really taken a pubic relations dive since the incident. Not a very smart business move. It will cost them mucho in the long run.

[DARFAP]

Get all the facts first before judging

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[GatorFan]

I Know You’re Mad at United but… (Thoughts from a Pilot Wife About Flight 3411) – The Pilot Wife Life (https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/)

[thelegges]

CEO on news this morning. He is apologizing now

[Paper1]

He is no hero but United is definitely the villain and were the party that was 100% wrong in this situation. They deserve the financial hit they are taking.

This is now a media driven lawsuit and will be worth millions more than it should. Media is still very powerful, it elected the last two presidents by the quality and quantity of their coverage. Although everyone denies it, as a people we are very much influenced by what we hear from media. United is screwed and I don't believe the punishment fits the crime. I guess this is what makes America special.

[graciegirl]

This is now a media driven lawsuit and will be worth millions more than it should. Media is still very powerful, it elected the last two presidents by the quality and quantity of their coverage. Although everyone denies it, as a people we are very much influenced by what we hear from media. United is screwed and I don't believe the punishment fits the crime. I guess this is what makes America special.

Excellent summary.

[ColdNoMore]

What makes this great nation "special," is a free press whereby those with power/money cannot get away with injustices...based on those advantages.

The pen/written word...is the great equalizer for the masses. :ho:

[John_W]

Problem 1) United used police to solve a business decision.

Problem 2) The police had no idea why they were removing the passenger.

The police have stated from now on, they will not remove passengers from flights because of over-booking. The last I read, was all 3 police officers have been suspended.

[graciegirl]

Problem 1) United used police to solve a business decision.

Problem 2) The police had no idea why they were removing the passenger.

The police have stated from now on, they will not remove passengers from flights because of over-booking. The last I read, was all 3 police officers have been suspended.

Excellent summary as well.

[golfing eagles]

Problem 1) United used police to solve a business decision.

Problem 2) The police had no idea why they were removing the passenger.

The police have stated from now on, they will not remove passengers from flights because of over-booking. The last I read, was all 3 police officers have been suspended.

Which leads to the obvious problem #3----The police ALLOWED themselves to be used in a civil matter----again, they should have told the parties to this CONTRACTUAL dispute to settle it in civil court.

[dillywho]

I read a letter from a pilot's wife on this and it is not what the media has portrayed.

This is paraphrased into what she said:

ALL airlines overbook. If not, then too many flights will not be filled to capacity. People often book a flight, then decide to take an earlier/later flight and don't both cancelling any other flights they have booked on other airlines. Flying at less than capacity is costly. This in turn can bring about higher fares, etc.

The fine print (yeah that) that most of us simply agree to without actually reading, tells you that a ticket does not guarantee you a seat. The other policies are also located in this fine print.

As for the flight crew: Airlines only bump the passengers to get a crew to another flight out of necessity. Just like any other business, staffing is subject to sudden illness, etc. Sometimes it becomes necessary to fly in another crew in order to not cancel a flight. FAA rules state that x-number of crew must be on every flight. Every time a flight has to be cancelled, there is a rippling effect. It is just not that one flight affected. Think about that the next time your flight gets cancelled. Better a delayed flight than a cancelled flight.

She also said that passengers are not 'randomly' selected for involuntary bumping. They go by next available flights, those having to connect to other flights, date of ticket purchase, and some of the other factors I forgot. Race, as this guy was screaming, nor random selection by drawing numbers or whatever does not even come into play.

Not only was United Security involved, so were police and Federal Air Marshalls. Once they were involved, the crew of this flight was out of it....period.

This man was his own problem. After a bit of research on him, turns out he is not as important as he rates himself. His appointments can be rescheduled; other things with some other passengers cannot. There is absolutely no excuse for his behavior. Too many people are totally absorbed with themselves and this guy fits that bill perfectly. Raising your voice and objecting is one thing. Kicking and screaming and having to be forcibly removed is quite another. He was being anything but docile as many men as it took to remove him.

When you are bumped from a flight, not only are you compensated (often handsomely) but get priority seating on the next available flight. I even got upgraded to first class one time! Works for me.

Just goes to prove that you cannot believe what the media feeds you. Remember, they are out for ratings, not reason and truth.

[Steve9930]

There is absolutely no reason for Airlines to over book a flight. Change the business model and make it more like buying a cruise. You want it you buy it. Want to reschedule buy insurance. Don't make the flight you still bought the seat. They are using a model that was set years ago when you could make a reservation and did not pay until you arrived at the airport and checked in. The one airline that I know of that does not over book is Allegiant. There are others. So to say they all over book is not correct. Airlines will do as much as we let them. Vote with your pocket book. And lets also get this straight, the flight was no over booked. United could have very easily put this crew on a shuttle. Also the compensation very rarely is worth the wait all things considered.

[graciegirl]

i read a letter from a pilot's wife on this and it is not what the media has portrayed.

This is paraphrased into what she said:

All airlines overbook. If not, then too many flights will not be filled to capacity. People often book a flight, then decide to take an earlier/later flight and don't both cancelling any other flights they have booked on other airlines. Flying at less than capacity is costly. This in turn can bring about higher fares, etc.

The fine print (yeah that) that most of us simply agree to without actually reading, tells you that a ticket does not guarantee you a seat. The other policies are also located in this fine print.

As for the flight crew: Airlines only bump the passengers to get a crew to another flight out of necessity. Just like any other business, staffing is subject to sudden illness, etc. Sometimes it becomes necessary to fly in another crew in order to not cancel a flight. Faa rules state that x-number of crew must be on every flight. Every time a flight has to be cancelled, there is a rippling effect. It is just not that one flight affected. Think about that the next time your flight gets cancelled. Better a delayed flight than a cancelled flight.

She also said that passengers are not 'randomly' selected for involuntary bumping. They go by next available flights, those having to connect to other flights, date of ticket purchase, and some of the other factors i forgot. Race, as this guy was screaming, nor random selection by drawing numbers or whatever does not even come into play.

Not only was united security involved, so were police and federal air marshalls. Once they were involved, the crew of this flight was out of it....period.

This man was his own problem. After a bit of research on him, turns out he is not as important as he rates himself. His appointments can be rescheduled; other things with some other passengers cannot. There is absolutely no excuse for his behavior. Too many people are totally absorbed with themselves and this guy fits that bill perfectly. Raising your voice and objecting is one thing. Kicking and screaming and having to be forcibly removed is quite another. He was being anything but docile as many men as it took to remove him.

When you are bumped from a flight, not only are you compensated (often handsomely) but get priority seating on the next available flight. I even got upgraded to first class one time! Works for me.

Just goes to prove that you cannot believe what the media feeds you. Remember, they are out for ratings, not reason and truth.

excellent.

[Challenger]

There is absolutely no reason for Airlines to over book a flight. Change the business model and make it more like buying a cruise. You want it you buy it. Want to reschedule buy insurance. Don't make the flight you still bought the seat. They are using a model that was set years ago when you could make a reservation and did not pay until you arrived at the airport and checked in. The one airline that I know of that does not over book is Allegiant. There are others. So to say they all over book is not correct. Airlines will do as much as we let them. Vote with your pocket book. And lets also get this straight, the flight was no over booked. United could have very easily put this crew on a shuttle. Also the compensation very rarely is worth the wait all things considered.
The courts will sort this out- keep the feds out of booking policy. If overbooking is prohibited, I imagine that refundable tickets will be history. Result= higher prices for consumer.

[biker1]

Involuntary bumping happens at the rate of 1 in 10,000. It is a relatively rare event. I have been voluntarily bumped numerous times and was well compensated for giving up my seat. In most instances, the delay in reaching my final destination was a couple of hours. In a couple of cases, I wound up on more direct flights that actually got me to my final destination before my original flight. My all time favorite was when traveling on a free ticket, via frequent flyer miles, I agreed to be bumped twice and got home with only a modest delay from the original flight. In my experience, the compensation was well worth the typically small delay in getting to my final destination.

A lot of airline travel is nothing like a cruise. From experience, I can tell you that a lot of business travel changes at the last minute. With the exception of some shuttle flights where you essentially paid when you were on the flight, the vast majority (perhaps all) of my business travel has been paid at booking for the last 30 years+, not when I got to the airport. You can vote with your pocketbook and not travel on airlines that overbook but the net result is you won't be doing much traveling.

The overbooking process works very well from my experience. The reason it works well is that there are people who are more than happy to give up their seats for compensation so the number of involuntary bumpings is small. Obviously it pays for the airlines to do this otherwise they wouldn't. I have flown several million miles and I have never been involuntarily bumped. I have, however, been involuntarily bumped from a hotel. They paid for a cab ride down the street to another hotel and paid for the night. I was back the next night where I should be.

There is absolutely no reason for Airlines to over book a flight. Change the business model and make it more like buying a cruise. You want it you buy it. Want to reschedule buy insurance. Don't make the flight you still bought the seat. They are using a model that was set years ago when you could make a reservation and did not pay until you arrived at the airport and checked in. The one airline that I know of that does not over book is Allegiant. There are others. So to say they all over book is not correct. Airlines will do as much as we let them. Vote with your pocket book. And lets also get this straight, the flight was no over booked. United could have very easily put this crew on a shuttle. Also the compensation very rarely is worth the wait all things considered.

[joldnol]

What makes this great nation "special," is a free press whereby those with power/money cannot get away with injustices...based on those advantages.

The pen/written word...is the great equalizer for the masses. :ho:

Exactly....United is getting exactly what they deserve. I thought psuedo-conservatives loved the free market.

[Madelaine Amee]

Today the attorney for this man and his daughter (he has five children) were on TV talking about the extensive damage he sustained during the dragging incidence. They were throwing around numbers for damages and someone said it is quite possible United could be looking at a $10M suit. I am sure there will be much more discussed on the evening news.

[retiredguy123]

I read a letter from a pilot's wife on this and it is not what the media has portrayed.

This is paraphrased into what she said:

ALL airlines overbook. If not, then too many flights will not be filled to capacity. People often book a flight, then decide to take an earlier/later flight and don't both cancelling any other flights they have booked on other airlines. Flying at less than capacity is costly. This in turn can bring about higher fares, etc.

The fine print (yeah that) that most of us simply agree to without actually reading, tells you that a ticket does not guarantee you a seat. The other policies are also located in this fine print.

As for the flight crew: Airlines only bump the passengers to get a crew to another flight out of necessity. Just like any other business, staffing is subject to sudden illness, etc. Sometimes it becomes necessary to fly in another crew in order to not cancel a flight. FAA rules state that x-number of crew must be on every flight. Every time a flight has to be cancelled, there is a rippling effect. It is just not that one flight affected. Think about that the next time your flight gets cancelled. Better a delayed flight than a cancelled flight.

She also said that passengers are not 'randomly' selected for involuntary bumping. They go by next available flights, those having to connect to other flights, date of ticket purchase, and some of the other factors I forgot. Race, as this guy was screaming, nor random selection by drawing numbers or whatever does not even come into play.

Not only was United Security involved, so were police and Federal Air Marshalls. Once they were involved, the crew of this flight was out of it....period.

This man was his own problem. After a bit of research on him, turns out he is not as important as he rates himself. His appointments can be rescheduled; other things with some other passengers cannot. There is absolutely no excuse for his behavior. Too many people are totally absorbed with themselves and this guy fits that bill perfectly. Raising your voice and objecting is one thing. Kicking and screaming and having to be forcibly removed is quite another. He was being anything but docile as many men as it took to remove him.

When you are bumped from a flight, not only are you compensated (often handsomely) but get priority seating on the next available flight. I even got upgraded to first class one time! Works for me.

Just goes to prove that you cannot believe what the media feeds you. Remember, they are out for ratings, not reason and truth.
I don't agree with much of what you say. You cannot book multiple flights and then not show up without paying for the flight. Regardless of what the fine print says, you should be guaranteed a seat. You can't change the fine print. The crew should never bump a paying customer who is sitting in his seat. The police were only involved when United got them involved because they did not want to offer enough compensation to bumped passengers. For once, the media got this one correct. The airlines have way too much power, and United really screwed this one up. Being bumped may work for you, but not for most people.

[graciegirl]

I don't agree with much of what you say. You cannot book multiple flights and then not show up without paying for the flight. Regardless of what the fine print says, you should be guaranteed a seat. You can't change the fine print. The crew should never bump a paying customer who is sitting in his seat. The police were only involved when United got them involved because they did not want to offer enough compensation to bumped passengers. For once, the media got this one correct. The airlines have way too much power, and United really screwed this one up. Being bumped may work for you, but not for most people.

Should.

Of all the words of tongue and pen, should is the one that holds the most unopened possibilities.

[nana13]

As a retired Flt. attendant of over 30 years, and also worked the gates in layoff times, I am ashamed of the treatment of this passenger, one this flt. was not over sold, two the priority psgs. were dead heading crew members, which could have been placed on another flt.(or delay their flt, until they arrived, or cancelled there flt. this was a scheduling problem, not a passenger problem) The Gate agents, did not contact crew scheduling to see if other arrangements could be made, I question the gate agents, if they went thru the cabin to count the empty seats. Any standby passengers who was placed on the flt. would be the first removed,(did they check the standby list) An announcement offering a monetary round trip ticket to any domestic destination that United flew, should have been offered, plus a re-accom on the next flt. and sometimes a monetary add, such as $500 United dropped the ball on this one The CEO, is just another Golden Parachuter, looking to retire, Believe me folks this is not the first nor the last of these incidents, I flew for TWA and our number one concern was customer service. When we went under I saw the demise of the airline industry,and customer service, you might as well take a Grayhound Bus. I have tried every major and i now fly South West, any chance I have, great airline with great customer service. Just be aware, that you can be bumped anytime the airline feels it can getaway with it.

[biker1]

I believe you are engaging in a lot of guess work as to what actually went on. By the way, Southwest is one of the leaders in unvoluntary bumping. I do fly them a lot, however.

As a retired Flt. attendant of over 30 years, and also worked the gates in layoff times, I am ashamed of the treatment of this passenger, one this flt. was not over sold, two the priority psgs. were dead heading crew members, which could have been placed on another flt.(or delay their flt, until they arrived, or cancelled there flt. this was a scheduling problem, not a passenger problem) The Gate agents, did not contact crew scheduling to see if other arrangements could be made, I question the gate agents, if they went thru the cabin to count the empty seats. Any standby passengers who was placed on the flt. would be the first removed,(did they check the standby list) An announcement offering a monetary round trip ticket to any domestic destination that United flew, should have been offered, plus a re-accom on the next flt. and sometimes a monetary add, such as $500 United dropped the ball on this one The CEO, is just another Golden Parachuter, looking to retire, Believe me folks this is not the first nor the last of these incidents, I flew for TWA and our number one concern was customer service. When we went under I saw the demise of the airline industry,and customer service, you might as well take a Grayhound Bus. I have tried every major and i now fly South West, any chance I have, great airline with great customer service. Just be aware, that you can be bumped anytime the airline feels it can getaway with it.

[Steve9930]

Involuntary bumping happens at the rate of 1 in 10,000. It is a relatively rare event. I have been voluntarily bumped numerous times and was well compensated for giving up my seat. In most instances, the delay in reaching my final destination was a couple of hours. In a couple of cases, I wound up on more direct flights that actually got me to my final destination before my original flight. My all time favorite was when traveling on a free ticket, via frequent flyer miles, I agreed to be bumped twice and got home with only a modest delay from the original flight. In my experience, the compensation was well worth the typically small delay in getting to my final destination.

A lot of airline travel is nothing like a cruise. From experience, I can tell you that a lot of business travel changes at the last minute. With the exception of some shuttle flights where you essentially paid when you were on the flight, the vast majority (perhaps all) of my business travel has been paid at booking for the last 30 years+, not when I got to the airport. You can vote with your pocketbook and not travel on airlines that overbook but the net result is you won't be doing much traveling.

The overbooking process works very well from my experience. The reason it works well is that there are people who are more than happy to give up their seats for compensation so the number of involuntary bumpings is small. Obviously it pays for the airlines to do this otherwise they wouldn't. I have flown several million miles and I have never been involuntarily bumped. I have, however, been involuntarily bumped from a hotel. They paid for a cab ride down the street to another hotel and paid for the night. I was back the next night where I should be.


There is no reason the airlines need to over book, none, Nada. You can run a airline just like a cruise. I traveled for 30 years in my job and I also took the freebees but the fact is you can use a different business model and it works just fine. There are a few airlines that do. With the proper planning you do not need to change travel plans on business and if you do, then this is where the insurance takes over. Its also when the stand bye's get a deal.

[Steve9930]

Today the attorney for this man and his daughter (he has five children) were on TV talking about the extensive damage he sustained during the dragging incidence. They were throwing around numbers for damages and someone said it is quite possible United could be looking at a $10M suit. I am sure there will be much more discussed on the evening news.

We will never know the number but it would have paid for a lot of private shuttles from Chicago to Louisville.

[Steve9930]

Here's another wrinkle starting to come to light. It appears since there was no threat coming from this passenger its a civil matter. Means the Police had no authority to remove the passenger. Like I indicated earlier, this man and his family will never have to work another day in their life. United and the City of Chicago should get out their check books and don't be insulting when the write down he number.

[Edjkoz]

I agree that no airline has to overbook any more. Most tickets sold are non refundable. If the passenger doesn't show, the airline still gets paid. For the very few full fare, refundable tickets, the airline could tack a penalty onto it for a no show.

[biker1]

I am totally amazed at people who apparently have no qualifications making such statements. Please state your qualifications and evidence to support such a statement. Otherwise you are just stating unsupported opinion. Don't you get it that the number of involuntary bumpings is 1 in 10,000?

I agree that no airline has to overbook any more. Most tickets sold are non refundable. If the passenger doesn't show, the airline still gets paid. For the very few full fare, refundable tickets, the airline could tack a penalty onto it for a no show.

[biker1]

Allegiant is an order of magnitude smaller than the largest airlines and certainly has it's share of consumer complaints. Since you are not in the airline industry, you really have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. For example, how much does overbooking add to their bottom line? If overbooking increases the percentage of seats filled and their bottom line it is hardly a dated business model. One more time, the chances of being involuntarily bumped is 1 in 10,000. This is a rare event. What happened with United was the results of bad decision making by the passenger, first and foremost, and the airport security people. Extrapolating this isolated event to overbooking in general is absurd. I prefer to deal in facts and not factless speculation. Since there is apparently nothing that you can add that is fact based, I don't see any need to continue to respond to opinions.

Business is business. You do not need to do over booking in the airline industry. Its an old out dated business model. Allegiant is one such airline that has thrown that model away. They are very profitable and do not over book. If you get paid for the seat whether its is filled or not you make your profit on the flight. If you think the airlines actually know what they are doing I guess you missed watching the video.

[Steve9930]

Allegiant is an order of magnitude smaller than the largest airlines and certainly has it's share of consumer complaints. Since you are not in the airline industry, you really have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. For example, how much does overbooking add to their bottom line? If overbooking increases the percentage of seats filled and their bottom line it is hardly a dated business model. One more time, the chances of being involuntarily bumped is 1 in 10,000. This is a rare event. What happened with United was the results of bad decision making by the passenger, first and foremost, and the airport security people. Extrapolating this isolated event to overbooking in general is absurd. I prefer to deal in facts and not factless speculation. Since there is apparently nothing that you can add that is fact based, I don't see any need to continue to respond to opinions.

Your mistake is your looking at it from the old worn out perspective. Their perspective. The first question to answer is why do they over book? I know the answer but do you? They look at a seat that is empty as a loss of revenue. That is what the airline will tell you. With the way they run the business that assumption is not correct. Its propaganda for people to swallow. Its not correct because today they charge you a change fee. Miss a flight and the number you will be charged covers the cost of the empty seat. You also pay up front for that seat. No more book and pay at the airport. Which was the real reason over booking started in the first place. Also not all seats are equally charged for the flight. The first seats at the lower price pay for the flight. They know how many seats they need to sell to break even. The cheep seats pay for the flight. The other more expensive seats make the profit. You make the airline smile.

[DonH57]

I like Southwest Airlines new slogan, " We beat our competitors, not you!".

[biker1]

First of all, I am not making any mistake because I don't pretend to know the airline business. Your mistake, on the other hand, is pretending you know more than the people doing yield management for the airlines. They, as well as other service industries with a fixed and time volatile inventory, overbook because it increases their bottom line based, in part, on the past history of the flight. Airlines could stop overbooking tomorrow if they wanted. To assume they continue doing something that provides no economic benefit is silly. To suggest they should just drop the business model they have today is silly and naive. It is easy to criticize when you don't know the details.

Overbooking is based on statistical modeling. For each flight, they model how many people will actually show up (and yes, many of the no-shows will pay a penalty to use their non-refundable ticket) and by how much they should overbook. Perfect overbooking would result in paying no compensation for voluntary or involuntary bumps but would yield more revenue than if they didn't overbook via a paying customer in every seat (and yes, each seat may have a different price because of their yield management strategy). To suggest that overbooking is a vestige of the past is naive. Yield management with overbooking is a sophisticated optimization problem. They are looking to maximize the revenue for each flight and overbooking is part of the strategy. The point you probably miss is that overbooking only makes sense when you have a statistical expectation of no-shows, which the major carriers apparently do because of business travel (I used to change flights quite often). You can claim that you don't overbook, as part of a marketing strategy to the uninformed, when your client base has a low no-show rate or you lack the yield management capabilities to do it effectively. Why you would care whether an airline overbooks, when considering the very low average involuntary bumping rate of 1 in 10,000, is beyond me.



Your mistake is your looking at it from the old worn out perspective. Their perspective. The first question to answer is why do they over book? I know the answer but do you? They look at a seat that is empty as a loss of revenue. That is what the airline will tell you. With the way they run the business that assumption is not correct. Its propaganda for people to swallow. Its not correct because today they charge you a change fee. Miss a flight and the number you will be charged covers the cost of the empty seat. You also pay up front for that seat. No more book and pay at the airport. Which was the real reason over booking started in the first place. Also not all seats are equally charged for the flight. The first seats at the lower price pay for the flight. They know how many seats they need to sell to break even. The cheep seats pay for the flight. The other more expensive seats make the profit. You make the airline smile.

[rubicon]

The chances of being bumped are 1 in 10,000. In the petroleum market the safest petroleum product is propane. However when it explodes its the mother of all explosions

Its troubling to me that a passenger pays ahead of time for a guarantee of a seat on a plane and an airline's right after the fact is to change its mind or give your seat away to someone else.

A shopper doesn't go to the store and buy a dozen egg and as s/he leaves ,the store tells them they want six back.

All insurance contract have exclusions ( ie events deemed not insurable). Yet when an exclusion is applied what is the policyholder's reaction?

Overbooking practices may be legal and deemed prudent business practices but its poor public relations. Passenger pay for certainty and peace of mind.

Being bumped may be 1 in 10,000 but then it depends on whose ox is being gored.

United is going out of its way to sully the passenger's character but it is irrelevant to their action. they would be wise to settle this case and call a meeting to determine a better way of dealing with economies of scale

[biker1]

There is no certainty in airline travel and everyone realizes that. Have you ever looked at the on-time arrival statistics? Weather, mechanical problems, air traffic control issues, security issues, etc. can cause delays. Being involuntarily bumped probably has the lowest probability of delaying your arrival. Overbooking is not the issue. If it was, you would hear these sorts of stories every day. Some poor on-the-site decision making by everyone involved, including the passenger, in this isolated case was the problem.

The chances of being bumped are 1 in 10,000. In the petroleum market the safest petroleum product is propane. However when it explodes its the mother of all explosions

Its troubling to me that a passenger pays ahead of time for a guarantee of a seat on a plane and an airline's right after the fact is to change its mind or give your seat away to someone else.

A shopper doesn't go to the store and buy a dozen egg and as s/he leaves ,the store tells them they want six back.

All insurance contract have exclusions ( ie events deemed not insurable). Yet when an exclusion is applied what is the policyholder's reaction?

Overbooking practices may be legal and deemed prudent business practices but its poor public relations. Passenger pay for certainty and peace of mind.

Being bumped may be 1 in 10,000 but then it depends on whose ox is being gored.

United is going out of its way to sully the passenger's character but it is irrelevant to their action. they would be wise to settle this case and call a meeting to determine a better way of dealing with economies of scale

[ColdNoMore]

I like Southwest Airlines new slogan, " We beat our competitors, not you!".

:1rotfl:


I heard that in addition to their low fare 'red eye' flights...United is going to be offering 'black eye' flights also.


:D

[DonH57]

:1rotfl:


I heard that in addition to their low fare 'red eye' flights...United is going to be offering 'black eye' flights also.


:D

And a fight club section on the aircraft!:22yikes:

[Steve9930]

First of all, I am not making any mistake because I don't pretend to know the airline business. Your mistake, on the other hand, is pretending you know more than the people doing yield management for the airlines. They, as well as other service industries with a fixed and time volatile inventory, overbook because it increases their bottom line based, in part, on the past history of the flight. Airlines could stop overbooking tomorrow if they wanted. To assume they continue doing something that provides no economic benefit is silly. To suggest they should just drop the business model they have today is silly and naive. It is easy to criticize when you don't know the details.

Overbooking is based on statistical modeling. For each flight, they model how many people will actually show up (and yes, many of the no-shows will pay a penalty to use their non-refundable ticket) and by how much they should overbook. Perfect overbooking would result in paying no compensation for voluntary or involuntary bumps but would yield more revenue than if they didn't overbook via a paying customer in every seat (and yes, each seat may have a different price because of their yield management strategy). To suggest that overbooking is a vestige of the past is naive. Yield management with overbooking is a sophisticated optimization problem. They are looking to maximize the revenue for each flight and overbooking is part of the strategy. The point you probably miss is that overbooking only makes sense when you have a statistical expectation of no-shows, which the major carriers apparently do because of business travel (I used to change flights quite often). You can claim that you don't overbook, as part of a marketing strategy to the uninformed, when your client base has a low no-show rate or you lack the yield management capabilities to do it effectively. Why you would care whether an airline overbooks, when considering the very low average involuntary bumping rate of 1 in 10,000, is beyond me.

Your assuming I never worked in the airline industry. I told you what I was in charge of, not who I worked for...... So when I tell you airlines do not need to over book that may be coming from a seat of knowledge, you'll never know.

[retiredguy123]

This entire issue is a no brainer. The man bought a ticket, was assigned a seat, was allowed to board the plane, and was sitting in his assigned seat. United had no justification to do anything, but to let him fly. Overbooking really has nothing to do with the situation. It was too late to bump the man from the flight.

[Steve9930]

This entire issue is a no brainer. The man bought a ticket, was assigned a seat, was allowed to board the plane, and was sitting in his assigned seat. United had no justification to do anything, but to let him fly. Overbooking really has nothing to do with the situation. It was too late to bump the man from the flight.

Right on target. United's Company policy also indicates such. The man was not causing any scene and was not a threat. United screwed up big time. The police screwed up big time. He will get a big check, the settlement will be sealed, and life will go on for him and his family only with more money in the bank.

[golfing eagles]

UAL committed a flagrant violation of two inviolate rules:

Rule 1: You do not talk about fight club

Rule 2: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!!!

[red tail]

And now, United Airlines pilots have released an official statement voicing their shared outrage over the incident.
United Master Executive Council — the union that represents all of the airline’s 12,500 pilots — released a public letter condemning what took place on on Flight 3411.
“The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event,” they wrote.
The pilots also wanted to make it clear that the flight was actually one of United’s “contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline.” This means that the staff and crew were not technically United Airlines employees, and United pilots believe this is an important distinction.
They also noted that they believe the majority of blame should be placed on the Chicago Department of Aviation (the department that employs the security officers who removed Dao), for their “grossly inappropriate response.”
Whatever your opinions on the matter, we can all safely agree that the incident should have never occurred, and we sincerely hope that United is reviewing all internal policies that led to the occurrence. It also sounds like the Chicago Department of Aviation should be undertaking their own thorough internal investigation into their standards and practices.
Wishing*Dr. Dao a full recovery.

[blueash]

An excellent analysis by an attorney which I am going to both link (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/14/1653064/-United-Airlines-and-Dr-Dao-Some-Further-Legal-Analysis)and extensively copy here, as it deals with the issues well and seems to be neutral and accurate.

Rule 25 of the contract of carriage is fundamentally irrelevant to this situation, since it applies only to resolving overbooking issues prior to boarding. This flight was coincidentally overbooked but that situation had been resolved by volunteers and the flight was then boarded and the passengers seated. The flight, and the rights of the seated passengers, were then exactly as they would have been if the flight had not been overbooked, but booked exactly to capacity, and then the passengers had been boarded and seated. That circumstance was governed by Rule 21, which lists numerous circumstances under which a passenger may be denied transportation or removed from the aircraft. None of those listed conditions applies to Dr. Dao’s case. There is no authority in the contract to remove a passenger in order to make room for another passenger or an employee that the company now wishes to transport and give preference to over the seated passenger. Period. When Dr. Dao refused to vacate his seat, he was not in violation of his contract of passage. Nor is there any evidence that in refusing he raised a ruckus more than emphatically declining, and not moving. ..Since Dr. Dao was within his contractual rights to refuse to vacate his seat, his refusal (barring evidence of excessive profanity and unreasonable shouting or scary flailing about) cannot be said to be disorderly, offensive, abusive or violent. And neither can it be said that he “failed to comply with or interfer(ed) with the duties of the members of the flight crew” since their “duties” cannot properly encompass an illegal ejection from his seat and denial of transport. So at this point United, through its agents, was entirely in the wrong. Then they called the cops, and told them that they had a disruptive passenger that they wanted removed. Or rather, they called the Chicago Airport Security Force (sometimes referred to as the Chicago Airport Police Force). This 300 member force exists somewhere between a police force and a private security force. It is an arm of the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA), which administers all aspects Chicago O’Hare and Midway International Airports. Its officers cannot carry firearms, but do have ordinary police arrest powers. So when the United Airlines crew called them and said they had a “disruptive” passenger that they wanted removed, did this give them probable cause to arrest Mr. Dao?

Technically, when Rule 21 is properly triggered, the passenger is asked to leave, and when he does not, he becomes a criminal trespasser subject to arrest (and of course the right to arrest includes the right to remove). Here the crew told the security officers that he was in that status, but they were mistaken. Did that give the officers the right to arrest because, although there was no criminal trespass, they had a right to rely on the assertion of the crew that there was? The answer to this is almost certainly yes, technically. This comes up fairly commonly when a complainant turns out to have been lying, for instance. The police still have probable cause to arrest based on the complainant’s original statement to them. It would have taken a very special officer to perceive that there was a problem with treating the refusal a seated passenger to give up his seat to another involuntarily as a “disruptive passenger” when the airline personnel assured them that this was a proper trigger of the right of removal.
And even if there was no authority on the part of the security officers to arrest in this circumstance, in Illinois one does not have the right to resist an arrest by an officer with the power of arrest by going limp even if the arrest is later found to have been illegal—it is still resisting arrest. So Dr. Dao did illegally resist arrest by going limp and making them pull him out.
Or maybe not. These “officers” appear to have been dressed in jeans and blue shirts with arm patches and baseball caps with some sort of inscription on the front.. It is not clear that they displayed badges and explained their authority. If they did not, then there was no way for Dr. Dao to know they were officers with the authority to arrest, and to issue orders pursuant to arrest--get up, put your hands behind your back, etc.--which must be complied with even though they comprise affirmative acts by the arrestee. From a reasonable person in Dr. Dao’s position they may have simply looked like hired goons of the airline, with no more arrest authority than a bar bouncer. If so, then I believe he had a right to passive resistance (not initiating a breach of the peace or affray), and would have acted lawfully by going limp.
Whichever way this would come out on a closer examination of the details of the episode, none of this is a defense for United, who through its agents misled the “officers” about a “disruptive” passenger they claimed they had a right to remove. And none of it makes the actions of the apparently poorly trained security officers prudent or reasonable in a general sense. But it does make the situation more complicated than it might appear at first glance.
Slightly edited to shorten, see original linked above. There is some discussion in the comment section that the issue of going limp is moot as Dao did not go limp until after his head struck the armrest and was concussed.

[autumnspring]

I believe they said flight was overbooked with no takers for a later flight. Picked name by random, according to what I heard. Should airline held up flight until he walked off on his own? Mistake made was letting him back on plane once decision was made. Overbooking is a fact of life, tickets and cancelations would be much more expensive without it.

I expect as others have said that this will cost United a pile of money.

I do find it interesting how poor the news coverage has been.

There was a story that Buffet lost 24 million dollars. I think I heard this on 96.5 FM a right leaning radio station out of Orlando. The stock market has been down about 1% this week and United fell 2%. For Buffet 24 million is petty cash.

United offered any passenger $600 to give up their seat and there were not enough takers. Interesting, which I did not know before the amount they can offer is controlled by the government. Contrary to what some people have said they simply could not offer any more.

As to that, "Doctor," claiming damages. He acted as a spoiled child. He did not think twice about his actions delaying the other ?????? hundred or so people on the plane. As he CRIED about his rights he simply did not care about anyone but himself. The doctor's daughter, I will guess she is about 40 years old spoke at a press conference. I am very skilled at reading people.
I WILL BET THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER FATHER.

Sadly, like the head of BP who publicly accepted guilt for the gulf oil spill the head of United apologized for the action of his employees. Like OBAMA and the dirtbag attys did to BP. BP paid millions for UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. United will likely be destroyed by this GUILTY OR NOT.

[biker1]

The amount of compensation for involuntary bumping is a function of the delay in getting the person to their destination. According to United's Contract of Carriage, it could be as high as $1350 for a 2 hours delay. It isn't clear what the delay would have been. There are no DOT rules regarding compensation for voluntary bumping.

I expect as others have said that this will cost United a pile of money.

I do find it interesting how poor the news coverage has been.

There was a story that Buffet lost 24 million dollars. I think I heard this on 96.5 FM a right leaning radio station out of Orlando. The stock market has been down about 1% this week and United fell 2%. For Buffet 24 million is petty cash.

United offered any passenger $600 to give up their seat and there were not enough takers. Interesting, which I did not know before the amount they can offer is controlled by the government. Contrary to what some people have said they simply could not offer any more.

As to that, "Doctor," claiming damages. He acted as a spoiled child. He did not think twice about his actions delaying the other ?????? hundred or so people on the plane. As he CRIED about his rights he simply did not care about anyone but himself. The doctor's daughter, I will guess she is about 40 years old spoke at a press conference. I am very skilled at reading people.
I WILL BET THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER FATHER.

Sadly, like the head of BP who publicly accepted guilt for the gulf oil spill the head of United apologized for the action of his employees. Like OBAMA and the dirtbag attys did to BP. BP paid millions for UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. United will likely be destroyed by this GUILTY OR NOT.

[John_W]

United offered any passenger $600 to give up their seat and there were not enough takers. Interesting, which I did not know before the amount they can offer is controlled by the government. Contrary to what some people have said they simply could not offer any more.

As to that, "Doctor," claiming damages. He acted as a spoiled child. He did not think twice about his actions delaying the other ?????? hundred or so people on the plane. As he CRIED about his rights he simply did not care about anyone but himself. The doctor's daughter, I will guess she is about 40 years old spoke at a press conference. I am very skilled at reading people.
I WILL BET THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER FATHER.

Sadly, like the head of BP who publicly accepted guilt for the gulf oil spill the head of United apologized for the action of his employees. Like OBAMA and the dirtbag attys did to BP. BP paid millions for UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. United will likely be destroyed by this GUILTY OR NOT.

If you're stating facts along with opinions, you should tell the facts correctly. United did not offer cash but offered a voucher for $400 and there was no takers. Then they raised their offer to a $800 voucher and one night in a hotel and they still had no takers. As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

The other misconception is the flight was over-booked. It wasn't over-booked, they had the exact number of seats sold as passengers. The seats to be vacated were for Airline employees traveling on standby. So the airline called in the police to settle a business decision, to remove paying customers so that standby airline employees could have their seat. So the airline might of had the legal right to remove a passenger from an over-booked flight, but the flight was not over-booked. They removed 4 paying passengers for 4 standby employees.

BTW, I take it you have never vacationed in the Florida panhandle or anywhere on the Gulf coast for that matter. The courts have already stated that BP Was Grossly Negligent In 2010 Oil Spill.

Pensacola Beach before BP, one of the most beautiful in the World.

https://beachdoccindy.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pbgbcrop1.jpg

After BP, would you swim on this beach?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Photography/BP-Oil-Spill-Pensacola-Beach/i-P8jBJgR/0/L/OilPier1-L.jpg

[biker1]

There is a difference between DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping and the fact that there is no DOT mandated compensation for voluntary bumping. The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival. Presumably, United could have offered any compensation for voluntary bumping. Why they chose not to go to a high enough number to get enough volunteers is unclear.

If you're stating facts along with opinions, you should tell the facts correctly. United did not offer cash but offered a voucher for $400 and there was no takers. Then they raised their offer to a $800 voucher and one night in a hotel and they still had no takers. As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

The other misconception is the flight was over-booked. It wasn't over-booked, they had the exact number of seats sold as passengers. The seats to be vacated were for Airline employees traveling on standby. So the airline called in the police to settle a business decision, to remove paying customers so that standby airline employees could have their seat. So the airline might of had the legal right to remove a passenger from an over-booked flight, but the flight was not over-booked. They removed 4 paying passengers for 4 standby employees.

BTW, I take it you have never vacationed in the Florida panhandle or anywhere on the Gulf coast for that matter. The courts have already stated that BP Was Grossly Negligent In 2010 Oil Spill.

Pensacola Beach before BP, one of the most beautiful in the World.

https://beachdoccindy.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pbgbcrop1.jpg

After BP, would you swim on this beach?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Photography/BP-Oil-Spill-Pensacola-Beach/i-P8jBJgR/0/L/OilPier1-L.jpg

[ColdNoMore]

If you're stating facts along with opinions, you should tell the facts correctly. United did not offer cash but offered a voucher for $400 and there was no takers. Then they raised their offer to a $800 voucher and one night in a hotel and they still had no takers. As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

The other misconception is the flight was over-booked. It wasn't over-booked, they had the exact number of seats sold as passengers. The seats to be vacated were for Airline employees traveling on standby. So the airline called in the police to settle a business decision, to remove paying customers so that standby airline employees could have their seat. So the airline might of had the legal right to remove a passenger from an over-booked flight, but the flight was not over-booked. They removed 4 paying passengers for 4 standby employees.

BTW, I take it you have never vacationed in the Florida panhandle or anywhere on the Gulf coast for that matter. The courts have already stated that BP Was Grossly Negligent In 2010 Oil Spill.

Pensacola Beach before BP, one of the most beautiful in the World.

https://beachdoccindy.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pbgbcrop1.jpg

After BP, would you swim on this beach?

https://photos.smugmug.com/Photography/BP-Oil-Spill-Pensacola-Beach/i-P8jBJgR/0/L/OilPier1-L.jpg


:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:

[ColdNoMore]

There is a difference between DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping and the fact that there is no DOT mandated compensation for voluntary bumping. The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival. Presumably, United could have offered any compensation for voluntary bumping. Why they chose not to go to a high enough number to get enough volunteers is unclear.

I think the answer to that question, is something Munoz said...right after he decided to act contrite instead of blaming the passenger. :oops:

He mentioned something to the effect that.. "we need to give gate agents more leeway to use their own judgement in offering incentives."

Which suggests to me, that there is an internal policy...on how much the first line person is allowed to offer. :shrug:

I'm sure we'll learn more later.

[blueash]

As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.

This has been mentioned multiple times and is wrong. The regulation specifies a minimum amount the involuntarily bumped passenger should be offered.

Here is the language on involuntary bumping:

More than two hours later than your original arrival time on domestic flights, or more than four hours late on international flights: 400 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $1,350.


That means if you have a ticket that costs $400 the airline instead of being required to give you 4 times, or 1600 only must offer 1350. If your ticket was 300 they must offer 1200 as it is not greater than 1350.

There is no regulation on the maximum they are allowed to offer if they want to get your seat. And you are entitled to a check and do not have to take an airline voucher.

This regulation, of being required to offer 400% of the ticket cost [unless you accept less not knowing the rules] means the airline will deliberately try to identify the lowest cost victim. Say you paid $200 for your seat and I paid $150 for mine. Well if they involuntarily bump you, it costs them $800, but only $600 if they bump me. Guess who will be bumped.

[biker1]

This has already been addressed. See post #128 and #130. No need to repeat the information.


This has been mentioned multiple times and is wrong. The regulation specifies a minimum amount the involuntarily bumped passenger should be offered.

Here is the language on involuntary bumping:

More than two hours later than your original arrival time on domestic flights, or more than four hours late on international flights: 400 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $1,350.


That means if you have a ticket that costs $400 the airline instead of being required to give you 4 times, or 1600 only must offer 1350. If your ticket was 300 they must offer 1200 as it is not greater than 1350.

There is no regulation on the maximum they are allowed to offer if they want to get your seat. And you are entitled to a check and do not have to take an airline voucher.

This regulation, of being required to offer 400% of the ticket cost [unless you accept less not knowing the rules] means the airline will deliberately try to identify the lowest cost victim. Say you paid $200 for your seat and I paid $150 for mine. Well if they involuntarily bump you, it costs them $800, but only $600 if they bump me. Guess who will be bumped.

[Paper1]

What makes this great nation "special," is a free press whereby those with power/money cannot get away with injustices...based on those advantages.

The pen/written word...is the great equalizer for the masses. :ho:

You overlook the fact the "free press" is a money making entity now, nothing more. Sensationalism attracts viewers and therefore sponsor dollars. Look at the number of posts on this story. IMO

[blueash]

This has already been addressed. See post #128 and #130. No need to repeat the information.

Perhaps I am having a problem with reading comprehension but both post 128 it could be as high as $1350 and 130 The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival. say that the limit, or maximum, compensation is 1350.

That is wrong, the 1350 is the minimum required for tickets that cost 337.50 or more. There is no maximum. So statements saying or suggesting that the DOT rules limit the amount the airline can offer to 1350 are incorrect. So I believe I am not repeating information already presented, rather I am attempting, apparently poorly, to correct misinformation on the regulations for involuntary bumping compensation.

[GatorFan]

These were not stand by employers. They were a working crew that needed to be flown to destination to work a flight.

[biker1]

You are incorrect to say that there is no maximum. Also, please note that I was misquoted in post #129 and tried to correct the misquote in post #130. I will try again to state the facts.

I find the wording in the Contract of Carriage to be misleading and can possibly be interpreted two ways. For a two hour or greater delay, the compensation is 400% of the one-way fare with a maximum of $1350. That could be interpreted as 400% of a maximum fare of $1350 (in which case the maximum compensation would be $5400 or 4 x $1350) or the maximum compensation is $1350 (regardless of how expensive the one-way fare is). I believe the latter applies and the maximum compensation is $1350. Regardless, there is a maximum. This applies to involuntary bumping only.

Go back at reread the United Contract of Carriage.

Here is summary from my travel folks at work, bold type added by me:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Perhaps I am having a problem with reading comprehension but both post 128 and 130 say that the limit, or maximum, compensation is 1350.

That is wrong, the 1350 is the minimum required for tickets that cost 337.50 or more. There is no maximum. So statements saying or suggesting that the DOT rules limit the amount the airline can offer to 1350 are incorrect. So I believe I am not repeating information already presented, rather I am attempting, apparently poorly, to correct misinformation on the regulations for involuntary bumping compensation.

[blueash]

You are incorrect to say that there is no maximum. Also, please note that I was misquoted in post #129 and tried to correct the misquote in post #130. I will try again to state the facts.

I find the wording in the Contract of Carriage to be misleading and can possibly be interpreted two ways. For a two hour or greater delay, the compensation is 400% of the one-way fare with a maximum of $1350. That could be interpreted as 400% of a maximum fare of $1350 (in which case the maximum compensation would be $5400 or 4 x $1350) or the maximum compensation is $1350 (regardless of how expensive the one-way fare is). I believe the latter applies and the maximum compensation is $1350. Regardless, there is a maximum. This applies to involuntary bumping only.

Go back at reread the United Contract of Carriage.

Here is summary from my travel folks at work, bold type added by me:

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $675 maximum.
If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Sorry, but this is why I am correcting you. There is no confusion at all in what the DOT regulations mean. My interpretation is correct. Unless the passenger accepts a lowball offer, the airline is required to pay 400% of the ticket price to an involuntarily bumped passenger who is delayed 2 hours. This 400% rule is capped at 1350 [4 x 337.50]. For tickets priced higher than 337.50 the airline is not required to offer 400% of the ticket price, only REQUIRED to pay the 1350. In other words 1350 is the minimum they must pay, again absent the passenger accepting a lower lowball offer.

See the language you have correctly included which is from the DOT website (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights) in your post which I enlarged. "the airline must pay you". It is the critical phrase and sets the lowest amount you should expect to receive. For a >2 hour delay the airline MUST compensate you 400% of your ticket price. If that were the stand alone rule and your ticket cost $500, you would be entitled to a minimum of $2000. Clear so far? To limit the airline's penalty required the DOT capped that required penalty instead at 1350.

That means that the airline is not required to offer more than 1350. It does not mean the airline is not allowed to offer more than 1350. If United wishes to say, well the government will not force us to offer more so we never will, that is a corporate choice. The government sets the minimum the consumer is entitled to receive.


Now I see you have cited a friend who works in the business as your source. I will cite the DOT regulation which is very clear.
(https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0140-2051)
Oversales
• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
 
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
 
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.

***********
Lastly, Delta has recently announced (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/14/delta-air-lines-bumping-compensation-9950-overbooking/100480050/)they are authorizing their personnel to offer higher compensation to induce passengers to be bumped,

A customer-service agent will be able to offer $2,000 per change from the previous $800. A higher-ranking worker such as an operations service manager could offer up to $9,950, from the previous cap of $1,350. If the DOT regulated the maximum that could be offered, this change would be a violation.

and United has changed its policy (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-crew-idUSKBN17H00M?il=0)on when dead head crew members must be at the gate to be accommodated

The airline, owned by United Continental Holdings Inc. said it would make sure crews traveling on their aircraft are booked into seats at least 60 minutes before departure.

[biker1]

As I already started, and as is written in the Contract of Carriage, there is a maximum compensation. You will be compensated, for a 2 hour delay, 4x the one-way fare up to a maximum of $1350. If your one-way fare is $100, they will compensate you $400. If your one-way fare is $500, you will be compensated $1350 and not $2000 because the compensation maximum is $1350. The involuntarily bumped passenger cannot accept a lowball offer, as you stated, because the compensation is mandated by the DOT. For some reason, you choose to inject the word "minimum" into the conversation when the language "the compensation is 4x the one-way fare and is capped at a maximum of $1350" is crystal clear. While you could make the argument that "the minimum you will receive is the maximum the airline will pay if your one-way fare is over certain value", but that is warped way of stating things. Again, you previously stated that there was no maximum and that is clearly wrong. Also, don't confuse involuntary with voluntary bumping. There are no DOT limits to compensation for voluntary bumping. Hopefully I have explained the situation to you.

For the technically astute:

compensation = 4 * one_way_ticket_price
if ( compensation > 1350) compensation = 1350

Sorry, but this is why I am correcting you. There is no confusion at all in what the DOT regulations mean. My interpretation is correct. Unless the passenger accepts a lowball offer, the airline is required to pay 400% of the ticket price to an involuntarily bumped passenger who is delayed 2 hours. This 400% rule is capped at 1350 [4 x 337.50]. For tickets priced higher than 337.50 the airline is not required to offer 400% of the ticket price, only REQUIRED to pay the 1350. In other words 1350 is the minimum they must pay, again absent the passenger accepting a lower lowball offer.

See the language you have correctly included which is from the DOT website (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights) in your post which I enlarged. "the airline must pay you". It is the critical phrase and sets the lowest amount you should expect to receive. For a >2 hour delay the airline MUST compensate you 400% of your ticket price. If that were the stand alone rule and your ticket cost $500, you would be entitled to a minimum of $2000. Clear so far? To limit the airline's penalty required the DOT capped that required penalty instead at 1350.

That means that the airline is not required to offer more than 1350. It does not mean the airline is not allowed to offer more than 1350. If United wishes to say, well the government will not force us to offer more so we never will, that is a corporate choice. The government sets the minimum the consumer is entitled to receive.


Now I see you have cited a friend who works in the business as your source. I will cite the DOT regulation which is very clear.
(https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0140-2051)
Oversales
• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
 
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
 
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
 
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.

***********
Lastly, Delta has recently announced (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/04/14/delta-air-lines-bumping-compensation-9950-overbooking/100480050/)they are authorizing their personnel to offer higher compensation to induce passengers to be bumped,

If the DOT regulated the maximum that could be offered, this change would be a violation.

and United has changed its policy (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-crew-idUSKBN17H00M?il=0)on when dead head crew members must be at the gate to be accommodated

[John_W]

Delta Airlines trumps them all. This morning on Today and HLN they said they will now offer up to $10,000 to bumped passengers.

[biker1]

More specifically, it looks like they will offer up to $10,000 to be voluntarily bumped (you volunteer to give up your seat). If you are involuntarily bumped, the maximum you will be compensated is $1350. Good marketing move since it gets headlines and the chances they will ever have to offer that high of a number is very slim indeed.

Delta Airlines trumps them all. This morning on Today and HLN they said they will now offer up to $10,000 to bumped passengers.

[dillywho]

This guy was so concerned that he HAD to get back to see patients the next day. My questions are: What about those patients now? Would it not have been much simpler for him to just reschedule instead? Now, they have probably had to seek treatment elsewhere. With his apparent background, they might just be better off. (Just speculating, understand.)

Except for his big lawsuit, what did he accomplish? Whatever he comes out of the lawsuit with, is he going to share with those patients he just had to get back for? My GUESS would be NOT.

[blueash]

As I already started, and as is written in the Contract of Carriage, there is a maximum compensation.

We can agree that United's contract only offers the ticketed passenger a maximum of 1350 for being involuntarily denied boarding. That is their corporate choice and a business decision. They are in compliance with DOT rules which state that United must pay at least that amount for a ticket priced at 1/4 that amount.

Where we are having an issue is your suggestion that DOT sets the maximum that United or any other carrier can offer to induce a passenger to give up their seat.

I am not the only one who reads your comment as saying the DOT only allows 1350 as the maximum United could give.
As Biker1 has already posted, by federal law they could of offered up to $1350.
. And it was that comment about a federal law setting an "up to" that began this exchange when I wrote a post saying that is an incorrect understanding.

Again here is post 130 from you

There is a difference between DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping and the fact that there is no DOT mandated compensation for voluntary bumping. The $1350 limit is DOT imposed for involuntary bumping with a 2 hour delay in arrival.

The first sentence is true. The airline can offer as little as nothing to induce people to volunteer to give up their seat. The second sentence is wrong in that you claim there is a mandated limit of 1350 for involuntary bumping. You suggest the 1350 is the MOST the airline can offer because that number is DOT mandated. The limit is a bottom limit. It is the minimum United and all other carriers must pay to involuntary denied passengers. Again see the actual DOT language, it includes the word minimum. So United is not bound by regulation to only offer 1350. It can have in its contract any language but the language they chose equates to:

If you are involuntarily bumped the government forces us to pay you 1350 and we will not offer one penny more as that complies with the minimum we get away with.

Once a passenger agrees to any lower [or higher] amount they are no longer being involuntarily bumped so the DOT rules no longer apply. As long as you will agree that the DOT sets the minimum amount due the involuntary bumpee and the airline picks any number which can be any number equal or greater than required, we are done. And this is an issue when people say, well United was only allowed to offer 1350 to try to get people to give up seats. No, United was allowed to offer whatever it needed to offer to get someone to give up its seats. Even in a contract, one side can give more than the contract language stipulates, just not less. It never even offered the 1350 which its own contract says was the amount it would owe for involuntary denial of boarding.

As to what did this accomplish? Airlines now will never force a passenger off a flight for their own convenience. Passengers will be more aware of their rights. Airport security will perhaps train their people better. There may be greater understanding of the need for a functioning Consumer Protection Agency. These are some positive outcomes of a very unfortunate event.

Time for nine and dine

[biker1]

I think we essentially agree. I will summarize:

1) For involuntarily bumped passengers, they will receive up to $1350 as compensation. DOT does not require the airlines to pay anything above that. I suppose an airline could offer to pay more but I don't ever see that happening.

2) For passengers volunteering to give up there seat, there are no DOT mandates. The airlines can offer any amount. I have never made any statements about maximums for passengers to give up their seat voluntarily. I was misquoted in this regard in posting #129.

These are the only two positions I have taken.

We can agree that United's contract only offers the ticketed passenger a maximum of 1350 for being involuntarily denied boarding. That is their corporate choice and a business decision. They are in compliance with DOT rules which state that United must pay at least that amount for a ticket priced at 1/4 that amount.

Where we are having an issue is your suggestion that DOT sets the maximum that United or any other carrier can offer to induce a passenger to give up their seat.

I am not the only one who reads your comment as saying the DOT only allows 1350 as the maximum United could give.
. And it was that comment about a federal law setting an "up to" that began this exchange when I wrote a post saying that is an incorrect understanding.

Again here is post 130 from you



The first sentence is true. The airline can offer as little as nothing to induce people to volunteer to give up their seat. The second sentence is wrong in that you claim there is a mandated limit of 1350 for involuntary bumping. You suggest the 1350 is the MOST the airline can offer because that number is DOT mandated. The limit is a bottom limit. It is the minimum United and all other carriers must pay to involuntary denied passengers. Again see the actual DOT language, it includes the word minimum. So United is not bound by regulation to only offer 1350. It can have in its contract any language but the language they chose equates to:

If you are involuntarily bumped the government forces us to pay you 1350 and we will not offer one penny more as that complies with the minimum we get away with.

Once a passenger agrees to any lower [or higher] amount they are no longer being involuntarily bumped so the DOT rules no longer apply. As long as you will agree that the DOT sets the minimum amount due the involuntary bumpee and the airline picks any number which can be any number equal or greater than required, we are done. And this is an issue when people say, well United was only allowed to offer 1350 to try to get people to give up seats. No, United was allowed to offer whatever it needed to offer to get someone to give up its seats. Even in a contract, one side can give more than the contract language stipulates, just not less. It never even offered the 1350 which its own contract says was the amount it would owe for involuntary denial of boarding.

As to what did this accomplish? Airlines now will never force a passenger off a flight for their own convenience. Passengers will be more aware of their rights. Airport security will perhaps train their people better. There may be greater understanding of the need for a functioning Consumer Protection Agency. These are some positive outcomes of a very unfortunate event.

Time for nine and dine

[EPutnam1863]

These were not stand by employers. They were a working crew that needed to be flown to destination to work a flight.

Gee, I may be upset if my flight in Louisville were canceled because no one in Chicago would give up seats for these 4 employees.

[golfing eagles]

This guy was so concerned that he HAD to get back to see patients the next day. My questions are: What about those patients now? Would it not have been much simpler for him to just reschedule instead? Now, they have probably had to seek treatment elsewhere. With his apparent background, they might just be better off. (Just speculating, understand.)

Except for his big lawsuit, what did he accomplish? Whatever he comes out of the lawsuit with, is he going to share with those patients he just had to get back for? My GUESS would be NOT.

But you forget the best part---if you look up this "doctor", his office address is a PO Box!!!!!

[ColdNoMore]

Wow, some of these responses are analogous to blaming the rape victim...because her dress was too short. :ohdear:

[golfing eagles]

Wow, some of these responses are analogous to blaming the rape victim...because her dress was too short. :ohdear:

No, there's no excuse for what UAL and the Chicago PD did. However, unlike a rape victim, I think this guy's behavior was contributory to the problem.

[GatorFan]

Gee, I may be upset if my flight in Louisville were canceled because no one in Chicago would give up seats for these 4 employees.

Don't forget the passengers waiting on the flight from Louisville and so on.

[GatorFan]

United Airlines did nothing wrong. The flight was not oversold. Due to circumstances none of us know the Louisville flight needed a crew to keep the planes moving. When they were unable to get 4 people to give up their seat for the crew they followed procedure that Every airlines uses. Three of the bumped passengers left plane and one refused. They called security. He then disobeyed a law enforcement officer. i would love to see the video from the beginning.

[BobandMary]

United has the right to remove passengers....But it really looked like over kill to me.

[GatorFan]

By law enforcement not United?

[John_W]

United Airlines did nothing wrong. The flight was not oversold...

Why do posters keep saying the flight was oversold? Before posting it would be good to actually scan the previous posts. The 4 employees were not paying customers, they were standby passengers. The passengers who were removed, or bumped, were actual paid passengers of that flight. Had they actually been oversold there wouldn't of been seats for everyone onboard. They needed to remove paid passengers so the standby passengers could come aboard to work in another city the following day. They could of just as easily been placed on a later flight that had empty seats if only the terminal agents went beyond their basic job requirements. Instead they called the police to enforce a business decision. One of the biggest mistakes they, and United has ever made.

[Muzik]

The extra passengers were United employees who were needed at another location.

[graciegirl]

The final chapter will show that this "doctor" will make money. Lots of it.

I think he has a story of his own that has nothing to do with getting back to Louisville and his patients.

I go with what Midwesterner's say about folks sometimes.

That doctor?

He ain't right.

[John_W]

The extra passengers were United employees who were needed at another location.

Since they were employees why didn't one of them sit in the jump seat? You know the spare seat in the cockpit that is used by examiners and by airline employees at other times. The Embraer 170 had one, here it is. It would of saved one paying passenger from being bumped. Again, another case of the boarding agents not going above and beyond in their job.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2zzwEBx5_6ZCKvtsf219phRU2CZWXW 1m690srpIGfTn8KhYxQoQ

When I was a controller I rode in the cockpit jump seat on about a dozen flights, and I wasn't even an employee, I was employed by the FAA. I wasn't an examiner, I was a controller.

[GatorFan]

Flught attendants can not sit in cockpit jumpseat. Againt FAA regulations. What kind of plane? Many of the new planes do not have jumpseats. What about weight restrictions?

[xNYer]

The final chapter will show that this "doctor" will make money. Lots of it.

I think he has a story of his own that has nothing to do with getting back to Louisville and his patients.

I go with what Midwesterner's say about folks sometimes.

That doctor?

He ain't right.

So this nefarious dr. boarded the flight with the intention of getting pulled off by security staff. His intent was to sue the airline?

His secret story accounts for the incident with the airline having no responsibility for what took place?

The airline had no other options for getting volunteers?

What do those Midwesterner's say about folks?

[John_W]

Flught attendants can not sit in cockpit jumpseat. Againt FAA regulations. What kind of plane? Many of the new planes do not have jumpseats. What about weight restrictions?

I wrote in my post the type of plane, a Embraer 170. It has 80 seats and one jump seat, the photo in my post is an actual jump seat from a Embraer 170. Of course a flight attendant working the flight would not sit in the jump seat, it would be one of the standby employees that would sit in the jump seat.

When I worked at Pensacola approach I flew many times in the jump seat and I would get bumped by pilots who lived in Pensacola, many pilots lived in the area but weren't based there. They paid the sales tax on the ticket and that was all. I sometimes had to sit for 2 or 3 flights to Atlanta before I could catch a seat. Once I got to Atlanta, I usually didn't have a problem going anywhere. Same with this situation, an airport as big as Chicago, there would be many more flights out of Chicago.

That's why I wrote that the terminal agents didn't go beyond their basic job, actually calling in police was putting the work on some other agency. All they had to do was split up the 4 workers. Two on this flight and two on a second flight. One rides the jump seat and one rides in the back. That way only one passenger would have to give up a seat on either flight. I'm sure if they offered a better amount an a $800 voucher they would get takers. Worse case scenario, they took 3 flights for the crew to get to Kentucky. They weren't scheduled to work until the next day.

[ColdNoMore]

So this nefarious dr. boarded the flight with the intention of getting pulled off by security staff. His intent was to sue the airline?

His secret story accounts for the incident with the airline having no responsibility for what took place?

The airline had no other options for getting volunteers?

What do those Midwesterner's say about folks?

Great questions. :BigApplause: