[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by suesiegel

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]

Originally Posted by suesiegel

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.



After BP, would you swim on this beach?

[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.

Originally Posted by John_W

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.



After BP, would you swim on this beach?

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by John_W

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.



After BP, would you swim on this beach?

......

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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