Passenger dragged off overbooked United flight

[Chock 17,769]

24 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Another thing, because people thought they were helping out this gentlemen by video taping this incident, I now know he is a tell for handing out prescription drugs and he lost his medical license. what s stand up guy! he was also accused of trading drugs for sexual favors. A total of of 98 felony counts.  Sounds like a stand up guy.

Few are likely to defend alleged previous dodgy behaviour, if that is indeed true, but then again we don't need to, it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand; that of him being injured whilst being violently dragged off an aeroplane when there was clearly no need for it, since other options were available if the gate staff and airline cared to give it some thought, which they quite evidently didn't, given the amount of people who disapprove of what they did and the amount of PR backpedalling they are having to indulge in because of that. He could be the most loathsome s*** ever to have drawn breath, but that still doesn't make treating him like that an admirable course of action, for if we condone that, then how are we any better? We can and should judge a society by how it treats all its members, not simply the ones we approve of.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

 

[laserit 93]

58 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

When a police officer asks you to get off an airplane, just get off the airplane. 

Ja vol herr kommandant!

[skelsey 765]

11 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Man is asked to leave airplane, He acts like a child by not following directions. Delays flight for everyone else because he's a selfish person.

Sorry, who's the selfish person here? The fully-paid-up first class passenger sat in his seat, or the chap who arrived (late?) and insisted that he had to get on board at somebody else's expense?

In any case, it's irrelevant: the point is that an airline with a better customer service ethos would never have allowed either of these events to happen in the first place, never mind deteriorate to the level that they did.

In the first case, if crew needed to be positioned then those seats should have been blocked off in advance. If they were not, then that is not the customers' problem: that is Ops' problem and if it's impossible to come up with enough volunteers (volunteer being the operative word -- and cash tends to be a strong incentive) they need to come up with an alternative solution. In the second case, I can see the commercial argument on one hand -- but again, looking at the effect on the UAL stock price today, how good a commercial decision did threatening a first-class passenger with handcuffs turn out to be?

Again, it comes back to customer service. No customers, no airline (though plenty of empty seats to position crew wherever and whenever you like).

[lownslo 592]

41 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Also, every single one of you fail to mention that this man made his own way back on the the airplane after he got off!!!! Once again, you all show your blatant ignorance of airline operations. When someone walks off the airplane, they are not allowed back on. It's a huge security threat. Sadly, most flight crews don't abide by this rule.

This isn't about "airline operations"... rather, people are upset over such an egregious violation of societal and contractual norms and mores.  Hundreds of millions of people around the world are angry, bitter, and shocked over what was done to the victim in this incident, starting with a business selling him a service and then at the last minute telling him he won't be traveling that night (because they screwed-up, not him) to three young and ignorant cops assaulting him, and finally somehow the airline and cops allowing him back on the airplane after he'd been beaten to facilitate his removal.

Frankly, your "airline operations" argument has grown tiresome.  Yet you continue to press that weak and meaningless point (hey, even CEO Munoz has finally proven himself smart enough to give up blaming the victim).  Finally, if even a small percentage of humans see such "airline operations" as acceptable then it is clearly time to make new laws protecting people from being subjected to injury (whether physical, financial, or emotional) by the industry.

Greg

[VeryBumpy 272]

56 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Society's sheer lack of common sense and wisdom is blatant in the world now.

<snip most of quality post>

Thing that gets me is the guy is 69 and as noted, has been in some trouble before. I would of thought he'd be wise, respectful and have common sense by this age of his.

Also, I too would like to know how he got back on the plane a 2nd time. Maybe he was let back on to grab his carry on items?

[Chock 17,769]

2 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Also, I too would like to know how he got back on the plane a 2nd time.

It's like a tag team wrestling match, if you can get tagged by another passenger in the airport, you can get back into the plane. It explains it all on the back of your ticket. I'm presuming that is also why it is legitimate for members of the other team to body slam you if you are on the passenger team. They apparently changed the rules a while back though, you used to be able to take over flying if you could tag the pilot, but it led to people trying to land the plane near their house so they didn't have to get a taxi home from the airport, so they had to abandon that part of the game.

[KevinAu 441]

I have never once asked a person boarding my plane what they have done in their past life.  Not even the ones under escort by law enforcement.  It does not matter to me, whether a criminal or a saint, our job is to get them wherever they bought that ticket for, safely, comfortably and quickly.  What I do try to do, is have some understanding and empathy for all the people in the back of the plane that pay my paycheck.  Especially if they are not frequent fliers, especially if they are wide eyed and tunnel visioned at the airport, especially if they are young or elder, especially if they don't have knowledge about all the rules, behaviors, norms, and etiquettes that all the aviation and flightsim professionals here possess about flying.  This was not a security issue.  This was a customer service issue.  He was not drunk, he was not armed, he was not harassing or threatening anybody.  He merely was somebody that got arbitrarily selected by the gate agent to give up his seat for a deadheading.  Even if he refused, it did not warrant police involvement, because he was not threatening anybody else safety.  The gate agent should have gotten his supervisor or his supervisor's supervisor, and worked up the chain of command to get whatever ideas or authorizations for an alternate solution.

As for the four deadheaders, that issue still bothers me.  Why were there four Republic crewmembers walking up to an already fully boarded flight to declare must ride?  Nobody is questioning what led to those four being there.  People all seem to just accept that, well, they were there because United needed them to work a later flight from Louisevile, right?  Were there weather cancellations that displaced them onto that flight?  If so, then ok, but why couldn't they have been placed on the later Transtates flight?  Even if that delays that crew's next flight, it's not like a flight delay never happens, but unseating four boarded people now, takes a lot more effort than delaying and reaccomodating for a later downline flight.

Was the reason they had to deadhead an entire E170 crew on short notice because of the daily, short staffed condition that Republic operations was running?  If so, if they were an unscheduled deadhead to cover a flight that was uncovered for crew shortage, then you have to ask if that is really acceptable.  If that is the case, then what really happened was United's cost cutting at their regionals exploding in their faces.  Because United/Continental once had a dedicated, wholly owned regional subsidiary that was well staffed and well run, to provide the short haul flights.  Until they divested themselves of that asset and replaced it with a revolving door of anonymous short term contract regional providers who gave the lowest bid for the work.  If this is the case, then this fiasco is actually United's insatiable quest for cost cutting their regional feed coming home to roost.

[JRBarrett 3,070]

It now appears that United indeed was in error, and that it is even worse that it first appeared. The flight was NOT "overbooked" (where more tickets are sold than there are seats on the aircraft). Rather, it was "full" with every seat sold.

United CEO Muñoz himself has now admitted that the passenger should never have been forced to leave the aircraft.

There appears to be a clear distinction in terms of what an airline can or cannot do in such a situation. Yes, FAA regulations DO permit airlines to overbook flights, and to bump passengers - and there is a regulatory compensation structure established for passengers who are bumped in an overbooking situation.

But, from a regulatory standpoint, there is a difference between "overbooked" and "sold out".

On the flight in question, every passenger, including the gentleman who was dragged off, had a paid ticket and boarding pass, and already been seated. There was a seat for every passenger, and a passenger for every seat.

To the best of my understanding, airlines cannot legally force paid and boarded passengers off of a flight to free up seats for deadheading airline staff, no matter how much inconvenience it might create for the airline, operationally-speaking.

The fact that deadheading crew members show up at the gate does not magically turn a "sold out" flight into an "overbooked" flight (where bumping procedures are allowed).

I'm sure the airline is well within their rights to attempt to entice passengers give up their seats in this situation by offering rebates and cash compensation - and if some take up the offer, great -- problem solved. But if not, the deadheaders wouid have to find other transport.

If my understanding of the situation (and CEO Muñoz's own public admission) is correct - United had NO legal right to demand that the man give up his seat and leave the aircraft.

If that is the case, United Airlines bears the majority of the blame for creating and escalating a situation that never should have happened in the first place.

That said, the passenger's resistance was unwise - especially when law enforcement  was called in. Even if the man was 100 percent certain that he was in the right, he should have left peacefully when the cops came aboard. 

As far as bringing up potential legal problems the man may have in his medical practice, (in order to somehow justify what happened) - that is reprehensible. I don't care if the man is the biggest a__h___ who ever walked the earth - if he was clearly wronged by actions on United's part that may well have been incompetent, (if not overtly illegal), then he deserves justice, and whatever compensation a court may allow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

2 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

<snip most of quality post>

Thing that gets me is the guy is 69 and as noted, has been in some trouble before. I would of thought he'd be wise, respectful and have common sense by this age of his.

Also, I too would like to know how he got back on the plane a 2nd time. Maybe he was let back on to grab his carry on items?

I think you are the last guy on the planet defending United, wasted effort 

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

3 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

Thing that gets me is the guy is 69 and as noted, has been in some trouble before. I would of thought he'd be wise, respectful and have common sense by this age of his.

Believe me, when you get to that age your resilience to being ###### about 'authority' gets a bit worn.

[VeryBumpy 272]

1 hour ago, ytzpilot said:

I think you are the last guy on the planet defending United, wasted effort 

Nah. I'm much less defending United than I am against the guy's actions.

Will be interesting to see how everything ends up.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

39 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Nah. I'm much less defending United than I am against the guy's actions.

Will be interesting to see how everything ends up.

I don't have an issue with the guy, so he slept with a few prostitutes, I am sure many United Execs have as well.

On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being a nun and 10 being Pablo Escobar, I would give this guy a 2. He really isn't a bad guy, he is just very bad at being a bad guy. 

The world has bigger things to worry about then this guy

[Alan_A 1,650]

25 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Nah. I'm much less defending United than I am against the guy's actions.

Will be interesting to see how everything ends up.

If not for United, the guy wouldn't have had any "actions."  His action was to take his seat and get ready to fly to Louisville - nothing else until, to his no doubt total astonishment, they came down the aisle to order him out of his seat.

The pro-United (or, OK, anti-passenger) voices in this thread seem to be operating on the assumption that the airline is an absolute authority and that buying a ticket is an act of submission.  Not true.  The ticket is a contract in which both sides have rights, responsibilities and expectations.  Expectations are especially important.  Google "reasonable expectation" and you'll find this.  

Quote

Reasonable Expectation - Legal principle that, in general, the provisions of a contract are to be interpreted according to what a reasonable person (who is not trained in the law) would interpret them. This doctrine is particularly applicable in adhesion contracts (such as bank lendings and insurance policies) or where a provision is open to more than one interpretation. It favors the objectively reasonable expectations of the weaker party (borrower or insured) although the language of the provision(s) does not explicitly support them. Also called reasonable expectations doctrine.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/doctrine-of-reasonable-expectations.html

The italics are mine.

The contract of carriage (on the ticket) is, as others have pointed out, an adhesion contract.  

The reasonable expectation that's in play - and I think this is how it will be argued - is that once you take your seat on the airplane, you can reasonably expect that you've started your journey and that you're going to be taken to your destination.  Expectations change once you leave the departure lounge and head down the jetway.  All of us have this experience - ah, it's been a hard day but now I'm on the airplane and I'm on my way and I can settle in and relax.  People are going to react much more sharply - even violently - if they're rousted out of their seats, compared to how they'd react at the desk in the gate area.  All the more reason for United (actually Republic - thanks, KevinAu, for pointing that out) to have resolved things before putting people on the aircraft.

I've said above, and I'll say again, that the passenger's background and history are totally unimportant.  And it matters not at all that he got upset.  People get upset.  If you're in the customer service business, the measure of your performance is how you handle upset people.  Nice, compliant, obedient people are no test at all.

Where will it end up?  In lawsuits.  Rightfully so.

[KevinAu 441]

The plane, flightcrew and four deadheaders were Republic, but the gate agents were United.  The security was Chicago Aviation Police.