Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[PaperDoll]

It's United's fault all the way around IMO. They are the one's who called Security to have one of their paid passengers removed for not giving up his seat voluntarily. It's United fault for overbooking, not Security. It's United's employees who caused a paid passenger to get bumped from his seat, not Securities. I don't think Dao was a threat to anyone, he simply didn't want to give up his seat and stood his ground and United didn't like that. I'm sure United has something in their TOS regarding giving up your seat, but IMO they handled it all wrong. Even if United abided by their own rules, they also need to abide by the Government's rules as well, which they may not have.

 

[rob]

None of the fellow passengers who were captive audiences stated he took a swing.

I would think the passenger who could testify to that will probably not go to the media, but rather to United, the airport security, or who ever they feel can work for the other side.

 

[bluesneakers]

I would think the passenger who could testify to that will probably not go to the media, but rather to United, the airport security, or who ever they feel can work for the other side.

So there was a swing but no one is talking about it? If that's true how do you know it happened?

 

[chlban]

Except that legally they couldn't. Airlines are only allowed to compensate bumped passengers up to and not exceeding 400% of the ticket price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are not REQUIRED to pay more than 400%. They are not restricted from doing so.

OTOH, last time I checked Assault and Battery is most definitely against the law. Also, as United is painfully discovering the PR for it is really, really bad.

 

[flourish]

With respect, every human being that is literate and every airline employee knows what it means to board a plane. It is a verb. It's not complicated. Yes the plane was still boarding. No, the man was not. He had already boarded. That's super clear. And no amount of clever double talk will change that. Even the CEO knows the passengers on the plane were boarded as he used the term "aboard".

At a certain point we have to be logical.
.

Bump because gitana is awesome

 

[flourish]

This is ridiculous. If I go to Taco Bell and order a taco and pay for it, would it be acceptable for Taco Bell to then turn around and say, "oh, sorry, no tacos for you, paying customer?" no! It's absolutely absurd to say that when one purchases a plane ticket they aren't guaranteed a seat... WTF am I paying for then? So stupid and the victim blaming is abhorrent. People before corporations! Corporations are not people!

 

[gitana1]

Right. No one in this country should ever be inconvenienced. If they are, they should be compensated. That's how we roll.

I kind of think bodily dragging a man from his seat after he already boarded, smacking his face onto chairs, is more than "inconvenienced".

We've allowed a monopoly with these airlines. We have allowed this situation where paying customers are at the mercy of a corporate entity so gross delays during which people are locked on a plane and denied air conditioning, food or functioning toilets, denial of flights they purposefully oversold so they can squeeze every last dollar out of the customer and providing cramped, unbearable seating, again so they can squeeze every last dollar out of us, are totally tolerated and allowed. And this is called inconvenience and people who resist it are described as having a temper tantrum.

And to top it off, some actually approve of what amounts to almost a police state of having LE physically enforce a corporation's quest for profits.

How did this happen?

I think of my experiences flying internationally and how different they are. I was actually allowed to fly in the cockpit, and LAND while in it, on a commuter plane from Seville to Madrid in 2008 because I had been terrified during the flight due to stormy weather (and I was a very fearful flier) and they were trying to make me feel calm. And this was post-911. The pilots were joking around with me, making fun of my accent, so relaxed and reasonable. (It was incredible. I flew in their jump seat? with all these crazy seat belts and landing was like a Disney ride. Beautiful.) Prior to that, a flight attendant came up to me, asked if I was ok (I looked terrified) and talked to me for a long time. She explained that most flight attendants in Spain had psych training!

The minute we crossed into American airspace on our trip back to the US, (different airline, different nation) flight attendants told us we could not continue to stand around talking with people we had met and had to take our seats due to regulations in the US.

At customs in Boston we were met by unsmiling customs agents and dogs. Customs agents brusquely demanded to know why we had been in Amsterdam. (One leg of our trip). It was a cold experience especially coming from the relaxed and accommodating airport and airline experiences in Europe, although I realize that has nothing to do with the airline, but the overall difference in experience is marked to me.

I wonder if this incident here will be the tipping point for us where we demand to be treated humanely regardless of the expense that would cause to corporate airline profits.

 

[gitana1]

It's United's fault all the way around IMO. They are the one's who called Security to have one of their paid passengers removed for not giving up his seat voluntarily. It's United fault for overbooking, not Security. It's United's employees who caused a paid passenger to get bumped from his seat, not Securities. I don't think Dao was a threat to anyone, he simply didn't want to give up his seat and stood his ground and United didn't like that. I'm sure United has something in their TOS regarding giving up your seat, but IMO they handled it all wrong. Even if United abided by their own rules, they also need to abide by the Government's rules as well, which they may not have.

Agreed. Here's more: [FONT=&quot]Rule 25 of United’s “[/FONT]contract of carriage[FONT=&quot]”—which is basically the legal fine print governing passenger flights—contains detailed procedures for how to handle overbooked flights on which passengers need to be bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But there’s no mention of a written statement or an explanation offered to passengers who are bumped [/FONT]against their will[FONT=&quot]. So unless there are other United procedures that aren’t public, the carrier’s official policy seems to exclude what the government requires.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rule 25 deals almost entirely with passengers denied boarding—in other words, people who never get on a plane. But in the Chicago incident, the passenger had already boarded when United employees told him he had to get off. Again, unless United has an unpublished policy dealing with this scenario, it’s not addressed in the contract of carriage. So even if United followed its own procedures, it would have violated government rules. [/FONT]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uniteds-real-mistake-173844672.html;_ylt=AwrSbncNZu5YhcMA_JRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWY1dWZzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM2MDRfMQRzZWMDc3I-

 

[chloes1]

United isn't known for listening to anyone, ever... this is the airline that smashed a musician's guitar and wouldn't replace it until he released a song about their terrible customer service, (and subsequently caused their stock to dip), the stories about this are the stuff of legend. So, no, I don't think they're listening.

Great point with boarding without seats being clearly assigned. Agreed that this was also where things went horribly wrong. I could not imagine promising a hotel room to a customer who paid for it only for the room to not be reserved. I could seriously not live with myself telling them to their face "Oh yes I know you just flew in from Germany and are exhausted and thought your room was reserved, but actually a staff member needed it for the night so sorry - looks like another hotel for you as we are fully booked!" That is such bad business practice.

hotel concierges and gate agents/travel agents have so much more pull than people think. I was able to comp a couple from Germany for their entire stay once (talking well over $1000.00) b/c expedia accidentally booked them to the wrong hotel and not mine. Of course expedia tried to give me the run around b/c they didn't want to pay the actual price of out hotel's nightly rate to make up for the reduced rate of the hotel they wrongly booked for the couple. I demanded the couple be comp'd or I would start a case. They immediately covered the stay. LOL. The couple brought me an orchid as a gift of gratitude the next day. See it pays to be a nice agent/manager/whatever! United are you listening?

 

[chloes1]

If United hadn't dropped the ball in the first place, (by not increasing the compensation for being bumped etc...) the police wouldn't have been called.

Like it or not, it's on United, because this happened on their property, after they called the police, after they fouled up their scheduling...

Chicago Aviation Police made the decision to handle the passenger in such a manner. Not United. They are NOT employees of United. United called them to resolve the situation as they are supposed to. It is not United's fault the officer used excessive force, the airline did things by the book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gitana1]

Except that legally they couldn't. Airlines are only allowed to compensate bumped passengers up to and not exceeding 400% of the ticket price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is flat untrue. An airline is free in this great nation of ours to provide any compensation they would like.

he won't get anywhere near even one million, a big company like UA has better lawyers then this guy can afford, and the clauses i just quoted will hold a lot of weight for UA in court,

they did everything according to company rules and procedures, and this guy agreed to those rules and procedures when he purchased his ticket,

if he didn't like those the rules and procedures, or didn't agree with them, then he should have looked elsewhere for transportation

No. They did not. They didn't follow their procedures and they didn't follow federal law:

[FONT=&amp]The Transportation Department says airlines must “give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn’t.” There’s no evidence United did that. In an internal email published by the Associated Press, United CEO Oscar Munoz said company employees “followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation).” But he didn’t say whether those employees followed government rules, including issuing the written statement and giving an explanation for why a given passenger was singled out for bumping.
[/FONT]
United’s Rule 25

[FONT=&amp]Rule 25 of United’s “contract of carriage”—which is basically the legal fine print governing passenger flights—contains detailed procedures for how to handle overbooked flights on which passengers need to be bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But there’s no mention of a written statement or an explanation offered to passengers who are bumped against their will. So unless there are other United procedures that aren’t public, the carrier’s official policy seems to exclude what the government requires.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unite...vbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM2MDRfMQRzZWMDc3I-[/FONT]

If that's not convincing enough to you, perhaps the words of a judge might be, who explains that indeed, it was United that violated the contract and that the passenger had every right to refuse to leave his seat. He also explains that the police should not and cannot use violence to resolve a civil dispute:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/...video-could-sue-airline-judge-napolitano-says

being on or off the plane is irrelevant....you are technically not "boarded" until the plane is flying



also another couple of terms the passenger agreed to....



Each United Carrier reserves the right to change or modify any of its conditions of contract with or without notice to ticketed passengers.


how do you get out of that one?


also..........


Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

• Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

he is breaking the terms he agreed to by not giving up his seat when told to do so, so they have the right to remove him from the plane


.

That's a fancy bit of double speak but yeah, he boarded. It's totally relevant that he was in his seat on the plane. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that one has not boarded the plane until it is flying. That's nonsensical. It's a verb. Even the CEO acknowledges the passenger was aboard. Here's more:

[FONT=&amp]There’s another wrinkle. Rule 25 deals almost entirely with passengers denied boarding—in other words, people who never get on a plane. But in the Chicago incident, the passenger had already boarded when United employees told him he had to get off. Again, unless United has an unpublished policy dealing with this scenario, it’s not addressed in the contract of carriage. So even if United followed its own procedures, it would have violated government rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The whole incident seems to have arisen from an unusual situation unanticipated by the airline. United says the flight was already fully boarded when four crew members approached the gate, saying they needed to board the plane to get to Louisville, where the flight was headed, or else a subsequent United departure out of Louisville would have to be canceled. [/FONT]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unite...vbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM2MDRfMQRzZWMDc3I-

(Emphasis by me). I'm surprised at the lengths posts will go to support this corporations' rights to protect their profits at all costs. Lengths that even include trying to change the meaning of English words!

Finally, even if the passenger had broken the contract, they cannot order him forcibly removed from the plane, contract or not. No contract can allow unlawful behavior.

 

[human]

I fly a lot. I have experienced different issues andnever knew about the contract for carriage until I had an issue. Really, how many people know about it?

Airline crew can only work so many hours. I have been in situations where my plane had mechanical issues. The airline fixed them but the plane could not fly because they could not get another crew to replace the one out of hours

I imagine that is what these four crew members were. Replacements for some kind of flight. United did not want to pay for the passengers on that flight, I bet

Will anyone explain to me how the flight was boarded with too many passengers? Why did they not know this?

Every flight I have been on that needs more room asks for volunteers in the WAITING AREA! What in the blue blazes made them overfill the plane?

 

[keeleydoll]

That is flat untrue. An airline is free in this great nation of ours to provide any compensation they would like.



No. They did not. They didn't follow their procedures and they didn't follow federal law:

[FONT=&amp]The Transportation Department says airlines must “give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn’t.” There’s no evidence United did that. In an internal email published by the Associated Press, United CEO Oscar Munoz said company employees “followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation).” But he didn’t say whether those employees followed government rules, including issuing the written statement and giving an explanation for why a given passenger was singled out for bumping.
[/FONT]
United’s Rule 25

[FONT=&amp]Rule 25 of United’s “contract of carriage”—which is basically the legal fine print governing passenger flights—contains detailed procedures for how to handle overbooked flights on which passengers need to be bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But there’s no mention of a written statement or an explanation offered to passengers who are bumped against their will. So unless there are other United procedures that aren’t public, the carrier’s official policy seems to exclude what the government requires.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unite...vbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM2MDRfMQRzZWMDc3I-[/FONT]

If that's not convincing enough to you, perhaps the words of a judge might be, who explains that indeed, it was United that violated the contract and that the passenger had every right to refuse to leave his seat. He also explains that the police should not and cannot use violence to resolve a civil dispute:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/...video-could-sue-airline-judge-napolitano-says



That's a fancy bit of double speak but yeah, he boarded. It's totally relevant that he was in his seat on the plane. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that one has not boarded the plane until it is flying. That's nonsensical. It's a verb. Even the CEO acknowledges the passenger was aboard. Here's more:

[FONT=&amp]There’s another wrinkle. Rule 25 deals almost entirely with passengers denied boarding—in other words, people who never get on a plane. But in the Chicago incident, the passenger had already boarded when United employees told him he had to get off. Again, unless United has an unpublished policy dealing with this scenario, it’s not addressed in the contract of carriage. So even if United followed its own procedures, it would have violated government rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The whole incident seems to have arisen from an unusual situation unanticipated by the airline. United says the flight was already fully boarded when four crew members approached the gate, saying they needed to board the plane to get to Louisville, where the flight was headed, or else a subsequent United departure out of Louisville would have to be canceled. [/FONT]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unite...vbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM2MDRfMQRzZWMDc3I-

(Emphasis by me). I'm surprised at the lengths posts will go to support this corporations' rights to protect their profits at all costs. Lengths that even include trying to change the meaning of English words!

Finally, even if the passenger had broken the contract, they cannot order him forcibly removed from the plane, contract or not. No contract can allow unlawful behavior.

Not untrue.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

US code

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KaaBoom]

buying a ticket does not guarantee you a seat on ANY flight, it never has been that way and it never will be that way




because he was told to as per UA ticket agreement.....




Rule 5 Cancellation of Reservations


All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.


Rule 25 - 2

Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily



seems to me like they followed all these rules perfectly.....people are booted from flights everyday, the only reason this is getting attention is because the guy acted like an idiot.

He had a seat. He was sitting in his assigned seat. The flight was not over sold. Everybody who had a ticket had a seat. The only idiots were the United employees and the security officers.

 

[keeleydoll]

They are not REQUIRED to pay more than 400%. They are not restricted from doing so.

OTOH, last time I checked Assault and Battery is most definitely against the law. Also, as United is painfully discovering the PR for it is really, really bad.

United employees did not use excessive force, the Chicago Airline Police did. They were called in to deal with an uncomplaint passenger. It is the same as renting a home, if you breach the contract it doesn't matter if you didn't know because you didn't read the fine print if you are asked to leave/evicted, LE will drag you out of the home.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drjones]

again, i think you are misinterpreting that. it is stating that they are not legally required to compensate more than that, it does not mean that they cannot compensate more than that. many civil penalties are limited in this way, that does not mean it would be illegal for someone to offer more of their own free will.

 

[LaneGirl]

I fly a lot. I have experienced different issues andnever knew about the contract for carriage until I had an issue. Really, how many people know about it?

Airline crew can only work so many hours. I have been in situations where my plane had mechanical issues. The airline fixed them but the plane could not fly because they could not get another crew to replace the one out of hours

I imagine that is what these four crew members were. Replacements for some kind of flight. United did not want to pay for the passengers on that flight, I bet

Will anyone explain to me how the flight was boarded with too many passengers? Why did they not know this?

Every flight I have been on that needs more room asks for volunteers in the WAITING AREA! What in the blue blazes made them overfill the plane?

The flight was not overbooked. I don't know why UA keeps saying that. It was full. They needed 4 crew members in the destination city at the last minute so they were kicking off paying passengers for crew/employees.

 

[LaneGirl]

again, i think you are misinterpreting that. it is stating that they are not legally required to compensate more than that, it does not mean that they cannot compensate more than that. many civil penalties are limited in this way, that does not mean it would be illegal for someone to offer more of their own free will.

Exactly. A few pages back I linked an article of a family of 3 that got 11k from Delta.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

do you have a source that directly states that they are not allowed to offer more? i have seen what most people are quoting regarding this and im not sure they are interpreting it correctly, are we certain it is not just a cap on what they are legally required to pay? what would be the rationale for not allowing them to offer as much as they might see fit in any given situation?

Airlines may have a legal cash limit of 400%, but there is not a limit for other types of compensation like travel vouchers which may be offered in addition to the cash payout.

 

[keeleydoll]

So the definition of the word maximum is now in question??

Wow. Forget contracts and legal rights of the business to hold customers to their contracted agreement. We're all too good to abide by contracts that we enter into now because we might be inconvenienced[emoji849]

I agreed that yes, CAP used excessive force, but the passenger was 100% in the wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk