audian wrote:

Before people forget this, the pressure should me mounted on DOT in framing/correcting the existing rules and make them more passenger friendly. Today its United and tomorrow it can be some other airline and one of us can be a victim.

This. The USA needs an EU261 style regulation desperately. Right now it's a joke that the airline can drag you off (literally in UAs case) and you get nothing.. haha.

Armodeen wrote:

audian wrote:

Before people forget this, the pressure should me mounted on DOT in framing/correcting the existing rules and make them more passenger friendly. Today its United and tomorrow it can be some other airline and one of us can be a victim.

This. The USA needs an EU261 style regulation desperately. Right now it's a joke that the airline can drag you off (literally in UAs case) and you get nothing.. haha.

The USA regulations for involuntary denied boarding has a higher maximum compensation amount than EU 261.

ikramerica wrote:

Remember, the bad press is mostly because this man decided to conduct a sit in protest and resisted arrest and seems to have tripped and hurt himself during the struggle. No matter what the circumstances, I know I don't want someone to be allowed to remain on my flight who struggles with police. Seems as soon as he did that he became a safety risk and had to be removed, even if by force. What is the alternative? Cancel the whole flight? Allow a passenger to continue on who refuses to comply with flight crew and police?

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

Bottom line, the cost of placing a deadheading crew on a full flight needs to be variable, and customer service managers need a wider range of discretion. As someone said several pages back, a deadheading crew is the cost of doing business. It should not come at the cost of your paying customers. Rules need to be rewritten. Up the compensation to whatever it takes to get someone to volunteer. The number of times you have to pay more to buy off seats is insignificant compared to the price United is now paying in PR and share price devaluation.

GCT64 wrote:

I know it's Fox News, sorry, but: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04 ... -feds.html

"The U.S. Department of Transportation is reviewing United Airlines' widely criticized handling of a passenger who was forcibly removed from a plane that had been overbooked.
A group of lawmakers also is calling for a congressional investigation into the case, as well as a closer look at the policies of airlines when a flight is at capacity."

If this gets legs politically and a law or regulation is put in place to outlaw overbooking, US3 and other US airlines would lose hundreds of millions$$ over a decision United made to save a few thousand $$

I'm sure they would fight it, and even if they win spend tens of millions of $$ lobbying

PA110 wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Remember, the bad press is mostly because this man decided to conduct a sit in protest and resisted arrest and seems to have tripped and hurt himself during the struggle. No matter what the circumstances, I know I don't want someone to be allowed to remain on my flight who struggles with police. Seems as soon as he did that he became a safety risk and had to be removed, even if by force. What is the alternative? Cancel the whole flight? Allow a passenger to continue on who refuses to comply with flight crew and police?

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

Bottom line, the cost of placing a deadheading crew on a full flight needs to be variable, and customer service managers need a wider range of discretion. As someone said several pages back, a deadheading crew is the cost of doing business. It should not come at the cost of your paying customers. Rules need to be rewritten. Up the compensation to whatever it takes to get someone to volunteer. The number of times you have to pay more to buy off seats is insignificant compared to the price United is now paying in PR and share price devaluation.

What's painfully apparent is that if we as a society cowtow to anyone with a twitter handle and a cellphone, it will be anarchy very quickly.

Does the video show this guy, after being removed, RAN BACK ONTO THE PLANE? He's unhinged to do that. And verifies the threat to the aircraft argument. Is he that irrational when dealing with patients at the hospital?

Armodeen wrote:

audian wrote:

Before people forget this, the pressure should me mounted on DOT in framing/correcting the existing rules and make them more passenger friendly. Today its United and tomorrow it can be some other airline and one of us can be a victim.

This. The USA needs an EU261 style regulation desperately. Right now it's a joke that the airline can drag you off (literally in UAs case) and you get nothing.. haha.

Oh he will get something for his troubles, believe me. Will probably never have to work a day in his life, ever again so lets not feel too sorry for the guy. And lets also not paint the entire industrywith a broad brush. Just a day earlier Delta made a detour on their ATL-DUB flight to stop at RDU to pick up a group of 30+ passengers who had missed their connection and would likely have their trip ruined. That is an example of how to treat your customers properly and they didn't need "EU261" to do that.

airbazar wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

audian wrote:

Before people forget this, the pressure should me mounted on DOT in framing/correcting the existing rules and make them more passenger friendly. Today its United and tomorrow it can be some other airline and one of us can be a victim.

This. The USA needs an EU261 style regulation desperately. Right now it's a joke that the airline can drag you off (literally in UAs case) and you get nothing.. haha.

Oh he will get something for his troubles, believe me. Will probably never have to work a day in his life, ever again so lets not feel too sorry for the guy. And lets also not paint the entire industrywith a broad brush. Just a day earlier Delta made a detour on their ATL-DUB flight to stop at RDU to pick up a group of 30+ passengers who had missed their connection and would likely have their trip ruined. That is an example of how to treat your customers properly and they didn't need "EU261" to do that.

I doubt that. He will take a small settlement in exchange for UA not pursuing criminal charges. Should he pursue civil remedy through the courts, it will get ugly, and then there's discovery, and the question of why a doctor would behave so irrationally, and what in his past might lead to this, and then his professional life comes into question.

Suing is messy business when you are claiming your own actions should be ignored in favor of blaming the other party. Very messy. Most people don't want to go through that...

By the way, UAL market cap is down $890,000,000 today. So maybe throwing an extra $1k of compensation to get that extra seat would have been a good idea.

ikramerica wrote:

What's painfully apparent is that if we as a society cowtow to anyone with a twitter handle and a cellphone, it will be anarchy very quickly.

Irrelevant. Social media is out there. It's not going away. The industry, and United in particular, needs to learn more effective ways to respond. They are massively behind the curve and losing ground daily.

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not. But it looks like a petition has been signed by 73 thousands plus times now for federal investigation into this incident. I'm not sure if this will have a big impact on UA's international network especially in China.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... april-2017

starrion wrote:

By the way, UAL market cap is down $890,000,000 today. So maybe throwing an extra $1k of compensation to get that extra seat would have been a good idea.

Exactly! The cost of how UA chose to respond is at least in the short term, catastrophic. I'm sure stock prices will rebound eventually, but in the short term, they've taken one hell of a hit. Not just for the incident itself, but for the absurdly tone-deaf response Munoz himself contributed.

Armodeen wrote:

audian wrote:

Before people forget this, the pressure should me mounted on DOT in framing/correcting the existing rules and make them more passenger friendly. Today its United and tomorrow it can be some other airline and one of us can be a victim.

This. The USA needs an EU261 style regulation desperately. Right now it's a joke that the airline can drag you off (literally in UAs case) and you get nothing.. haha.

In the U.S., we have "denied boarding compensation." This is the compensation that a passenger must be offered, if there are insufficient volunteers to resolve an overbooking situation.

If the airline can't arrange alternate transportation that gets the passenger to the destination within two hours, then he shall get a refund of 400% of his ticket, up to $1350. If travel can be arranged, such that the passenger gets to his destination in 60 minutes to 119 minutes, then the compensation is 200% of the ticket, up to $675. If the airline can get the passenger to his destination within an hour of his original arrival time, then the passenger gets no compensation.

This is from 14 CFR Sec. 250.5

In the situation, if a passenger had volunteered, he would have flown out on UA the next morning. But, if you are denied boarding, than UA was obligated to not only look at its schedules systemwide, but also look at AA, DL, and any other airline with which it has an interline agreement (i.e., no Southwest out of MDW).

FlyHossD wrote:

transswede wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I guess the question is what should the airline do with customer that refuses to vacate the aircraft??
Obviously, law enforcement will be contacted, and so we end up potentially with an escalated or nasty outcome.

This one is easy. Obviously increase the offer up to the maximum allowed. In cash. This is where they failed. Calling security should be the last option.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's say the maximum was offered and there still weren't enough volunteers - then what should have been done in your opinion? Please understand that I'm not critiquing your stance, I just want to know what should happen next.

Simple.. arrange alternative transportation for the staff. It was after all 100% the fault of the airline... NOT the customer. Fly the staff to a nearby airport and arrange ground transportation. It should be airline staff that is inconvenienced because of this mess up and NOT the customer. The contempt that gets shown towards customers is pathetic. Can you imagine this kind of piss poor attitude flying (no pun intended... ok maybe a little pun intended) in any other business? Imagine being rudely removed from your dinner at a restaurant because the host/hostess accidentally made too many reservations. Or imagine being kicked out of a movie because they sold too many tickets or the manager had promised seats to a critic.

PA110 wrote:

starrion wrote:

By the way, UAL market cap is down $890,000,000 today. So maybe throwing an extra $1k of compensation to get that extra seat would have been a good idea.

Exactly! The cost of how UA chose to respond is at least in the short term, catastrophic. I'm sure stock prices will rebound eventually, but in the short term, they've taken one hell of a hit. Not just for the incident itself, but for the absurdly tone-deaf response Munoz himself contributed.

I'm sure UA' gate agents carefully consider the affects of market cap valuation before handing out $1,000.

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

Several things they didn't actually overbook a flight, they removed a man by force to make room for staff. Also this wasn't United it was Republic Airlines that code-shares with United wearing their livery. They have different rules than UA. not sure why everybody dogging on UA.
the bottom line, this TRULY NOT a airline issue.

as someone mentioned he was asked to leave, he didn't, security was called.

The abuse that followed was on security not the airline.

You may wonder, why getting staff on a plane is so important. These things are booked months in advance, however due to delays and flight cancellations and weather issues in other cities sometimes staff is moved to plane at the last minute so they can get to their destination on time to fly their plane.

why would they do that? so that they don't have to cancel their flight or delay their flight causing passenger to miss their connections, it literally a butterfly effect.


The rules in the past have always been the last one on the plane is the first one off the plane. However it seems like everybody was boarded. since this was a codeshare flight, i'm sure the gate agent didn't have access to the information which means she/he probably had closed out the flight.

and couldn't use the normal rules, until she/he called corporate and got them open again, there was no time so they did the random drawing.
i like how everybody wants to blame the airline, the gate agent, and everybody else but those who were responsible. give me a break

read your right of carriage contract. airlines have the right to break the contract/your ticket at any time as long as they offer your compensation and get you on the next available flight to your destination. which the airlines was trying to do.

Don't be surprised if this Dr. isn't charged. refusing to leave a plane when asked and being forcibly removed is a serious offense.

mjoelnir wrote:

Now the airline had been flying four crew to the place were their next flight leaves the next morning. Let us assume the airline has booked rooms, let us assume they were prepaid to be sure that the crew would get those rooms. What would the airline say if there was exhibition or conference in that town, no other rooms free and those rooms would have been given to a walk in, paying twice the rate of what the airline paid for those rooms. The hotel is prepared to refund the airline the prepayment, or offering the airline four rooms the next night. I assume the airline would have been ecstatic, having realised that the hotel has learned how to do proper business.

You may be surprised to learn that hotels do overbook rooms, and for various reasons, do "bump" guests. Oh, and you might also be surprised to learn, there are no federal protections against that. So, in fact, the airlines have something to learn from the hotels, from your slant!

The above is easily sourced from the internet.

For a more anecdotal view: my understanding is that Marriott or Hilton offer a 'perk' for top-tier elites that allow them a 24-hour notice room anywhere, anytime, even if the hotel is fully booked. I'm sure there are some caveats, but my understanding is, this can be used to 'bump' a poor chap from his room before said chap checks in at the hotel. Again, I don't have a source for this, other than a consultant I work with who lives on the road and was able to get a last-minute room in a full sell-out situation for some work I called him in for - he explained the perk when I was surprised he was able to make it. It may also be that hotels never truly "sell out" all rooms, and reserve a few for such people.

Varsity1 wrote:

I'm sure UA' gate agents carefully consider the affects of market cap valuation before handing out $1,000.

The gate agent is not expected to take market cap valuation into account, but those setting policy should. More to he point however, Munoz now has to answer to his board of directors for the damage he's caused. He of all people is required to keep market cap valuation in mind.

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

No matter how you slice it, this debacle was United's fauilt. Unlike your concert example, this person did not act up to get booted. The airline gate agents made a bunch of mistakes in the boarding process. They never should have boarded people that could be removed due to overbooking issues. These issues should have been resolved up front prior to boarding anyone.

If the airline hadn't scanned the ticket and allowed him to board initially, we wouldn't have this predicament.

ckfred wrote:

If the airline can't arrange alternate transportation that gets the passenger to the destination within two hours, then he shall get a refund of 400% of his ticket, up to $1350.

Flightaware shows average ticket price for this route $180, so $800 may be reasonable compensation. But I heard airline have to pay in cash or check, not in Disney $$ Is that true?

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

UA CoC contains word "revoke" only as "revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any," - and even that is in case of certain violations of ticketing laws and policies.
Do you have any better reference for ticket revocation rights?

Varsity1 wrote:

PA110 wrote:

starrion wrote:

By the way, UAL market cap is down $890,000,000 today. So maybe throwing an extra $1k of compensation to get that extra seat would have been a good idea.

Exactly! The cost of how UA chose to respond is at least in the short term, catastrophic. I'm sure stock prices will rebound eventually, but in the short term, they've taken one hell of a hit. Not just for the incident itself, but for the absurdly tone-deaf response Munoz himself contributed.

I'm sure UA' gate agents carefully consider the affects of market cap valuation before handing out $1,000.

Sarcasm noted: Management sets the boundaries for compensation. Check out the Family gets 11K from Delta for the flip side. Delta made a calculated decision to pay big money to cover their operational issue. United specified that their ops personnel should offer the minimum, then start yanking people out of their seats. That decision cost United $900 million in lost market cap, and makes ->Delta! look like the customer service heros.

ikramerica wrote:

Does the video show this guy, after being removed, RAN BACK ONTO THE PLANE? He's unhinged to do that. And verifies the threat to the aircraft argument. Is he that irrational when dealing with patients at the hospital?

Didn't you notice that occurred AFTER the airline took the incorrect actions? And after he was possibly concussed by the security personnel the airline requested and directed to remove the passenger from the plane? How does that "verify the threat to the aircraft argument"?

And yes, there is video of the doctor returning the plane rambling about "must get home" or some such. Another thing United will have to pay out for. Causing a situation that made him look like a loon.

Tugg

ALTF4 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Now the airline had been flying four crew to the place were their next flight leaves the next morning. Let us assume the airline has booked rooms, let us assume they were prepaid to be sure that the crew would get those rooms. What would the airline say if there was exhibition or conference in that town, no other rooms free and those rooms would have been given to a walk in, paying twice the rate of what the airline paid for those rooms. The hotel is prepared to refund the airline the prepayment, or offering the airline four rooms the next night. I assume the airline would have been ecstatic, having realised that the hotel has learned how to do proper business.

You may be surprised to learn that hotels do overbook rooms, and for various reasons, do "bump" guests. Oh, and you might also be surprised to learn, there are no federal protections against that. So, in fact, the airlines have something to learn from the hotels, from your slant!

The above is easily sourced from the internet.

For a more anecdotal view: my understanding is that Marriott or Hilton offer a 'perk' for top-tier elites that allow them a 24-hour notice room anywhere, anytime, even if the hotel is fully booked. I'm sure there are some caveats, but my understanding is, this can be used to 'bump' a poor chap from his room before said chap checks in at the hotel. Again, I don't have a source for this, other than a consultant I work with who lives on the road and was able to get a last-minute room in a full sell-out situation for some work I called him in for - he explained the perk when I was surprised he was able to make it. It may also be that hotels never truly "sell out" all rooms, and reserve a few for such people.

Does that include bumping the poor chap who is sleeping in the bed out of his room, toss his stuff into his bags and deposit him on the sidewalk? I have been bumped by a hotel. I got told by the Marriott desk clerk before check-in that they had sold my reserved room. So they got me a room at the Embassy suites down the road. Fast forward 3 years and I had 500K Hilton Honors points and 0 Marriott rewards. Hilton Honors has some awesome perks too.

Varsity1 wrote:

I'm sure UA' gate agents carefully consider the affects of market cap valuation before handing out $1,000.

Are you serious?

This UA gate agent is obviously too stupid to even think of taking off their shoes to allow them to count to 20.

Market cap valuation? The idiot probably thinks that's a question of how much you'd pay for a baseball cap in a street market stall!


----------------------------------------
On a more serious note - anyone with an IQ beyond about 30 would know paying a passenger $10,000 to volunteer to step off the flight is a great deal relative to having them dragged off a flight by security goons in the era of smartphones*.

*In an era without smartphones, paying them 10K rather than dragging them off would be the right thing to do - but on the assumption the gate agent has zero empathy for their fellow human - they still got it completely wrong.

I've had several people say that he actually did voluntarily leave the A/C then changed his mind and went back on (before security was involved). If this is true doesn't it kill the argument that he was already boarded and he really has no rights at that point

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

. not sure why everybody dogging on UA.
the bottom line, this TRULY NOT a airline issue.

k.

The OVERWHELMING negative response to the story on social media, the decline in UA market cap, and the fact that the story was the first story on most television station in the US (providing UA with such glowingly favorable (LOL!) PR, says it is an airline issue.

In the court of public opinion, UA is a very big loser. The situation (and UA's badly fumbled response to it) will likekly cost UA millions of $. It's already cost UA shareholders (of which I am one) nearly a Billion $.

What do you guys have to say about this. I think the author has a point:

From a lawyer:

First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about " OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/64peq0/a_public_relations_disaster_for_united_airlines/dg47gey/

In any case, handling situation like this is a very appalling treatment of paying customers in my opinion.

MD80MKE wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not. But it looks like a petition has been signed by 73 thousands plus times now for federal investigation into this incident. I'm not sure if this will have a big impact on UA's international network especially in China.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... april-2017

The man is Vietnamese, true that this incident has ruffled all east Asians, but why should China be so concerned? is he from Chinese community in Vietnam?

The moral aspect of this debacle has been commented on forvso many times that I dont think I can add anything more to what has been said. However,I think some issues on apology needs to be clarified here.

An apology can be taken as indirect evidence to show that the statement maker is liable for some wrong done, but if there is direct evidence (conditions of carriage, DoT rules and facts of the present incident, etc) showing clearly no wrong has been done, any number of indirect evidence will not prove the existence of a non-existent wrong.

Given the rather strange choice of words by the CEO and his refusal to apologize, it can only be one of three possible scenarios: UA is legally liable, his legal department is uncertain as to whether they bear any liabilities, or he is a dumba** and refuse to do the decent thing even when it will bring no adverse consequence.

If a billion dollar corporate's legal team is unsure as to the legal responsibilities, i am sure this is an arguable case for the victim.

Bumping off a passenger involuntary requires the airline to pay 4x the ticket price up to $1350, fact
The present victim was offered $800, fact

However, things are not so simple in law as people seem to think. The defintion of "on board", for example, was disputed in previous replies. I am surprised to see people arguing that even after "boarding" at the gate, you may still be considered as not "on board".

There are, at least, a few questions as to law that is unanswered in the posts above.

Is the power to kick any passenger off the plane at a coat of $1350pp max exercisable at will? It sounds like a rather draconian power to me. If the answer is positive, Congressmen should learn the term "unconscionable contracts". I dont find it convicing that a first class pax flying from SIN to EWR or IAH on UA can be legally shoved out of the plane for as little as $1350.

Could he have bought the ticket for more than $200? He could have bought it as part of his journey from far-flung places in another continent. How then is the fare to be calculated concerning this provision? Frankly, I dont know. I dont live in the US.

If the fare of this flight turned out to be greater than $200, this gentleman has every right to stay in his seat.

Revo1059 wrote:

I've had several people say that he actually did voluntarily leave the A/C then changed his mind and went back on (before security was involved). If this is true doesn't it kill the argument that he was already boarded and he really has no rights at that point

Some evidence please.

Its kind of sad to see people defending UA on here, I understand some people are UA fans, but I don't see how anybody can deny they massively f'ed up here. Maybe they were right by the letter of the law, as they were with the legging incident, but for Christ's sake, use common sense...a little bit would have avoided this rightfully deserved media outrage. The solution is so painfully simple: keep offering more money until four people accept, or until it becomes cheaper to book the crew on a different airline, or rent a limo for them. ORD to SDF is less than a five hour drive.

socalgeo wrote:

It looks like United's stock is getting reaccomodated today. Down 4% last I looked.

Yep; it is definitely being dragged down...

PA110 wrote:

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

What's painfully apparent is the disproportional distorting ability of "social media" and those who control the who sees it, what prominence is it given, why it is given that prominence, when it is newsworthy and how long it is kept in the spotlight of "news". Case in point, this United story being given "headline" status on Google News, while the Delta meltdown (and subsequent ATL troubles) story mysteriously absent from same page. He who controls the media, controls the message.

Emirates in not wasting time and opportunity.

I could not post the link. But their facebook page has an interesting update.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Several things they didn't actually overbook a flight, they removed a man by force to make room for staff. Also this wasn't United it was Republic Airlines that code-shares with United wearing their livery. They have different rules than UA. not sure why everybody dogging on UA.
the bottom line, this TRULY NOT a airline issue.

Sorry, this is not a good excuse. This whole incident is about public perception. The public doesn't know or care that this flight was operated by someone else ON BEHALF of United (not a code-share...). What the public sees is the "United" logo all over the place and a ticket that says "United". They see FAs, pilots, and gate agents in UA uniforms. They see a United safety video. They connect to "United Wifi" on the plane. Literally nothing about that flight from a normal passenger perspective would reveal the fact that another company was involved.

If you want to go even further, it's the actual confrontation was between the passenger and ORD security, and did not involve United. United mishandled the situation but what made it news was the video of police dragging this poor guy kicking and screaming off of a plane with blood all over his face. That's all the public knows or cares about.

-IR

Flighty wrote:

You are trying to equate an order to leave with an order to do handstands?
.

You're the one who said that if you openly defy instructions you will be removed, with force if necessary (your words). I'm just trying to gauge the limit (if any) to this statement.

kalvado wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

UA CoC contains word "revoke" only as "revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any," - and even that is in case of certain violations of ticketing laws and policies.
Do you have any better reference for ticket revocation rights?

I used the term "revoke" in reference to the act of changing the ticket status; this falls under their Contract of Carriage under refusal of transport:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... aspx#sec21

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

He was asked to leave the aircraft by the crew. And then the authorities.

Again, not saying how UA got to this point was correct in any way; clearly, they should have gone aboard and started upping the VDB amount until they had enough takers, and getting to the $1350 ceiling under the law would probably have done that.

But unfortunately, that didn't happen, and they asked four people to deplane. Three did so without incident.

This fourth customer, regrettably, chose to make a stand against the commands of law enforcement.

And, well...

N212R wrote:

PA110 wrote:

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

What's painfully apparent is the disproportional distorting ability of "social media" and those who control the who sees it, what prominence is it given, why it is given that prominence, when it is newsworthy and how long it is kept in the spotlight of "news". Case in point, this United story being given "headline" status on Google News, while the Delta meltdown (and subsequent ATL troubles) story mysteriously absent from same page. He who controls the media, controls the message.

True but ironically the strongest defender against controlling of media is, in fact, the internet and the social media. UA could have paid major traditional news agencies a huge sum in exchange for their silence, but they cant do so with millions of individuals in the internet.

N212R wrote:

PA110 wrote:

What's painfully apparent is the disproportional distorting ability of "social media" and those who control the who sees it, what prominence is it given, why it is given that prominence, when it is newsworthy and how long it is kept in the spotlight of "news". Case in point, this United story being given "headline" status on Google News, while the Delta meltdown (and subsequent ATL troubles) story mysteriously absent from same page. He who controls the media, controls the message.

The DL weather related meltdown did make the news, but it's not BIG news because weather related meltdowns happen dozens of times a year. I recall DL, AA UA and WN all having at least one in the last year.

When's the last time you saw an (innocent) passenger dragged off a plane parked at a gate? The answer to that question tells you why that is BIG news.

Amiga500 wrote:

Revo1059 wrote:

I've had several people say that he actually did voluntarily leave the A/C then changed his mind and went back on (before security was involved). If this is true doesn't it kill the argument that he was already boarded and he really has no rights at that point

Some evidence please.

I'm trying to find out. Can anybody confirm this? I was told by 2 different people with direct knowledge this was the case but I can't find anything to back that up.

ikramerica wrote:

bugsbegone wrote:

Have you guys read one of the passengers' testimony on reddit?

Apparently, when the doctor refused to deplane, another passenger offered UA $1600 to volunteer, and was laughed at by the crew. So this situation could have been solved then and there if United wasn't so cheap.

No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

People you all need to understand this as its been stated over and over in this thread; this was NOT an IDB scenario. The flight was NOT oversold and the flight WAS boarded and everyone WAS sitting in their assigned seats ready to go.

Though UA can certainly try to entice folks to get off with compensation, they do not, under federal law, have the right to FORCE a paying passenger who is sitting in his assigned seat and otherwise not doing anything warranting removal, from the aircraft. PERIOD.

Sure the gate agent likely failed to communicate anything to police and the police officers have their own liability issues but understand clearly that UA is in hot legal water. Munoz doubling down with that idiotic release only made things worse. How UA can have such a terrible public/media relations department is frankly beyond me at this point.

If UA is lucky, they will write a fat check in a confidential settlement. If they aren't lucky and/or continue to be idiotic in their handling of the matter, watch Congress revisit the regulations in this area. Even though Republicans are considered "pro-business," this feeding frenzy is perfect for their publicity seeking needs. They could address everything from "overbooking" (which this wasn't) to a codified passenger's bill of rights similar to what is in place in other parts of the world.

UA needs to step up, say that they looked into it, were wrong and WILL amend their rules to ensure this NEVER happens again.

DouglasDC9 wrote:

Bumping off a passenger involuntary requires the airline to pay 4x the ticket price up to $1350, fact
The present victim was offered $800, fact

The victim was offered 0 $, only a voucher with a value of 800 $ when used.

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser.

That's not true. The passengers and Munoz both have stated the passenger was "asked to volunteer" to be bumped and receive compensation. Merriam-Webster dictionary is having a grand time with this pointing out that volunteer clearly means "to do something without being forced".

It was a simple yet significant error on the UA staff's part to call law enforcement to forcibly remove him immediately after asking him to volunteer. The passenger paid attention to the fine detail of what the UA staff asked of him... to leave without being forced. He declined, as was his right to do so. Yet UA then acted contrary to what they asked of him and justified it by citing the fine print of a Contract of Carriage. Airlines can't expect passengers to abide by the fine print if they don't permit passengers to expect the same of the airline.

"Disasters don't just happen. They're triggered by a chain of critical events." And it was UA who created the chain of events in this PR disaster.

EA CO AS wrote:

kalvado wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

UA CoC contains word "revoke" only as "revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any," - and even that is in case of certain violations of ticketing laws and policies.
Do you have any better reference for ticket revocation rights?

I used the term "revoke" in reference to the act of changing the ticket status; this falls under their Contract of Carriage under refusal of transport:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... aspx#sec21

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

He was asked to leave the aircraft by the crew. And then the authorities.

So he was asked to leave because he refused orders of - not even crewmembers, but gate agent? Or he was refused transportation before that?

EA CO AS wrote:

I used the term "revoke" in reference to the act of changing the ticket status; this falls under their Contract of Carriage under refusal of transport:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... aspx#sec21
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

It sounds like you are saying that United were right to kick him off the flight because he refused to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, who's directives were to kick him off the flight.

So he wasn't in breach of that article until the crew tried to kick him off the flight, at which point he was in breach, and so they were within their rights to kick him off the flight.

Does that mean they were not within their rights the first time they tried to kick him off, but were when he refused to be kicked off, so should have been kicked off.

Can you explain that to me like I'm a five year old (I'm actually 6).

Edited to fix "Quote"

EA CO AS wrote:

kalvado wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

UA CoC contains word "revoke" only as "revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any," - and even that is in case of certain violations of ticketing laws and policies.
Do you have any better reference for ticket revocation rights?

I used the term "revoke" in reference to the act of changing the ticket status; this falls under their Contract of Carriage under refusal of transport:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... aspx#sec21

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

He was asked to leave the aircraft by the crew. And then the authorities.

Again, not saying how UA got to this point was correct in any way; clearly, they should have gone aboard and started upping the VDB amount until they had enough takers, and getting to the $1350 ceiling under the law would probably have done that.

But unfortunately, that didn't happen, and they asked four people to deplane. Three did so without incident.

This fourth customer, regrettably, chose to make a stand against the commands of law enforcement.

And, well...

Don't just make up stuff.

None of RULE 21 clauses are applicable here for the crew to ask him to leave.

BostonGuy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser.

That's not true. The passengers and Munoz both have stated the passenger was "asked to volunteer" to be bumped and receive compensation.

You're wrong.

He was asked to volunteer. And when he didn't, he was volunTOLD.

At that point, he was being asked to leave the aircraft. His refusal to do so escalated things to the point where LEOs had to be called to remove him.

Yes, UA shouldn't have let this get anywhere near this far, and while there's a lot of grey here, you also have to look at (and cannot deny) the black-and-white where he was, in fact, trespassing once UA asked him to leave and he refused.

Revo1059 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Revo1059 wrote:

I've had several people say that he actually did voluntarily leave the A/C then changed his mind and went back on (before security was involved). If this is true doesn't it kill the argument that he was already boarded and he really has no rights at that point

Some evidence please.

I'm trying to find out. Can anybody confirm this? I was told by 2 different people with direct knowledge this was the case but I can't find anything to back that up.

He did NOT volunteer and leave the plane on his own. I think the confusion is that he (according to some reports) initially volunteered but changed his mind when told he would be delayed a day. Then the argument with the manager started resulting in him being dragged off the plane.

----

That he managed to get back on the plane after being bloodied and roughed up by the security/cops is a separate thing that happened later. Which is a stunning intictment of the UA and ORD security. Do they just let people randomly wander on to planes??? Did the UA gate people go hide? Did security people just leave him in the terminal in that condition?

sergegva wrote:

DouglasDC9 wrote:

Bumping off a passenger involuntary requires the airline to pay 4x the ticket price up to $1350, fact
The present victim was offered $800, fact

The victim was offered 0 $, only a voucher with a value of 800 $ when used.

Thank you for the correction, but i thought i saw posts saying that an offer of $800 in vouchers was available before LEOs came?

Actually, why are vouchers considered as a cash alternative?
Cash dont run out of value at any given date. Vouchers may. Hell i could have given him $800 voucher that expires the next day but it would still be considered as cash alternative???