Overbooking, Flightcrew over paying passengers, the United incident

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I can't see him getting tens of millions from this.  That would be pretty egregious, given the actual damages here.

Given the PR hit and the videos, I wouldn't be surprised. 

[Ice Queen]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not to defend the practice but by all accounts it was, sadly, legal.  That doesn't make it "right".

No, you're right, it doesn't. They're not mercenaries and should not be involved at all. 

[MisterOJ]

Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

By all accounts he wasn't being disruptive. They simply wanted to boot him off and called the police to do it for them. 

So why should the police get involved in the airline cheating their customers?

That would be up to the police as to whether to get involved or not. If they got a call from the airline saying, "We have someone we need to be removed from one of our planes," then it's up to the police to handle the matter where they see fit.

You can ignore the disruptive part if you want. If a restaurant owner called the police and said, "There's someone in my diner and he won't leave even though I have asked him several times." Then it's on the police to assess the situation and either remove the person, or if they feel like he's within his rights, leave him in his seat.

[Ice Queen]

Just now, MisterOJ said:

That would be up to the police as to whether to get involved or not. If they got a call from the airline saying, "We have someone we need to be removed from one of our planes," then it's up to the police to handle the matter where they see fit.

You can ignore the disruptive part if you want. If a restaurant owner called the police and said, "There's someone in my diner and he won't leave even though I have asked him several times." Then it's on the police to assess the situation and either remove the person, or if they feel like he's within his rights, leave him in his seat.

That's my point. They shouldn't have been called, period, much less gotten involved. I guess they need no excuse to be thugs and exercise their power over a man much smaller than they are. 

[Ded As Ned]

I would suspect that the airline, owning said aircraft, has the legal right to remove any passenger from the plane for any reason.  They may be legally obligated to refund the cost of the flight, but are probably within their rights to remove the passenger.  Thus, when the passenger refuses, the police get involved. 

[Iskaral Pust]

After the leggings debacle two weeks ago, United promptly reloads and shoots itself in the other foot.  Way to go, fuckheads.  A large chunk of their employees have been shitting on passengers for years as their passive-aggressive revenge for the cuts in benefits and perks during their bankruptcy restructuring, although it was the pilots who lost by far the most as their pension benefits were cut drastically under PBGC rules.

I hope this guy gets a huge payout.  Even if the fine print on his ticket makes this legal*, I think it's time for citizen jurors to push back on customers getting physically manhandled to enforce contractual fine print.  I don't see any basis for a "security officer" to physically intervene without a court order in a situation not posing harm to others.  (was he a policeman?  he was accompanied by two policemen, but the aggressor was not wearing a uniform and we don't see him identify himself)

And United's policy that their need to move crew supersedes your fully paid ticket just goes to show where we stand with terms & conditions in contract law.  They are responsible for none of the knock-on effects of your delayed travel.  Customers have no real alternatives to all manner of bullshit terms & conditions -- not least waiving the right to sue -- and it's time there were much stronger legal protections for consumers.

 

*It's a big reversal here from recent threads that Scot is outraged even though legally/pedantically the passenger had no right not to be dragged off the flight after he had boarded. Being properly seated gives a certain feeling of entitlement to that seat, but nothing under law.  Be prepared for DunderMifflin to troll you mercilessly.

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

That's my point. They shouldn't have been called, period, much less gotten involved. I guess they need no excuse to be thugs and exercise their power over a man much smaller than they are. 

Sadly this is one of the ways in which police are legally used. The man was trespassing on private property and interfering with what is considered a public good. United is not the ones who should handle it, as they cannot legally touch him. Police are the only ones authorized with the use of force in this manner. 

[Dr. Pepper]

36 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

That would be up to the police as to whether to get involved or not. If they got a call from the airline saying, "We have someone we need to be removed from one of our planes," then it's up to the police to handle the matter where they see fit.

You can ignore the disruptive part if you want. If a restaurant owner called the police and said, "There's someone in my diner and he won't leave even though I have asked him several times." Then it's on the police to assess the situation and either remove the person, or if they feel like he's within his rights, leave him in his seat.

The only way your dumb restaurant comparison work is if it's a customer who called in advance, let's just say two days, to make a reservation.  He wanted that reservation enough that he prepaid for an expensive dinner.  He receives a receipt confirming that reservation.  He receives multiple communications telling him all about the reservation. Then he confirms it again two hours prior.  Reconfirms several time between then and dinner served.  Receives a final confirmation and then is seated at the table preparing to put his expensive food in his mouth when suddenly the manager comes up and says, "Hey, we would like one of our employees to eat here so kindly get out and by the way here is a coupon for dinner on another date when maybe our employee won't want to eat here."  

Of course, even then it's still not the same because flying in a plane isn't comparable to dropping in at the local coffee shop.  

[Swordfish]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The only way your dumb restaurant comparison work is if it's a customer who called in advance, let's just say two days, to make a reservation.  He wanted that reservation enough that he prepaid for an expensive dinner.  He receives a receipt confirming that reservation.  He receives multiple communications telling him all about the reservation. Then he confirms it again two hours prior.  Reconfirms several time between then and dinner served.  Receives a final confirmation and then is seated at the table preparing to put his expensive food in his mouth when suddenly the manager comes up and says, "Hey, we would like one of our employees to eat here so kindly get out and by the way here is a coupon for dinner on another date when maybe our employee won't want to eat here."  

Of course, even then it's still not the same because flying in a plane isn't comparable to dropping in at the local coffee shop.  

You are using an arbitrary definition of what an airplane reservation entitles the holder to, rather than, you know, the actual one.

Here's what I suspect likely happened, because...  Occams razor...

Airline crew needs to get on the plane to get to ANOTHER plane because <reasons>. united makes the decision that they will inconvenience (and likely compensate) a single passenger to avoid inconveniencing an entire plane load of passengers, so they bump this guy in order to get the other flight out on time, which they had every reason to believe would go off with no issues as it has  many thousands of times in the past, and likely with the intent of getting him on a flight a couple hours later and a couple hundred dollars richer.

How any of what happened up to that point can be construed as some kind of 'OMG CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY' is completely beyond me.

I can't stand United and I avoid flying them at all costs, but this is a tempest in a teapot.

It wasn't even their employee who manhandled the guy, right?

Seems like a reasonable place to revisit this:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1myllo/stand-up-louis-ck--the-miracle-of-flight

[DireWolfSpirit]

Regardless of public opinions against Uniteds mgt practices right now or the Dr's history, United is getting hammered in the market place over this story. Recent headline noting they have already seen their stock plummet over a billion in value. The CEO apparently just made things worse with his blame the victim stance. That CEO has earned a good paycut from his shareholders. Thats the follow up news I'll be watching for.

In other words, i'm not sure a new law is necessarry here, the market place is exacting the reward/punishment pretty efficiently here. Now more carriers will be much more cautious about how they would handle future events like this. Losing billions in stock valuation is a great motivator for not repeating such behavior.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Sure.  So where is your evidence to counter the economic arguments put forth by the airlines?

Where are their economic arguments first?

Where do they lay out how much it would cost to remove over-booking, for example? Where is their evidence?

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

 If it is not for economic reasons, then what is your theory as to why they do it?

No idea why you think I am saying they don't do it for economic reasons. They do. I'm suggesting that the extent of the cost of abolishing the practice is not known to any of us, and accordingly we have no idea whether it's a cost that could be absorbed by the airlines, or would be in practice fairly minimal on a per-customer basis. We don't have a clue what the costs are, so it seems naive to simply repeat the airline's claims unchallenged.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You are using an arbitrary definition of what an airplane reservation entitles the holder to, rather than, you know, the actual one.

 

No, I'm pointing out that it's beyond stupid to compare an airplane reservation to visiting some random diner for lunch.  

[DMC]

So I actually flew out of Chicago on Sunday afternoon.  Fortunately, I was smart enough to (a) not fly United, and (b) not live in Kentucky.  Sorry, low blow.

[Kalbear]

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

This is a bit more than people "bitching about the inconvenience".  This guy got multiple confirmations that he would be allowed to fly and at the last minute, after he had boarded, after he'd gotten settled the Airline delayed the flight and told him to get off and give his seat to someone they deemed more important.  

While it may be legal it's still a load of bullshit.  United is a shitty airline and deserves all the bad press it is getting over this and other incidents.
 

 

[Swordfish]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

Where are their economic arguments first?

Where do they lay out how much it would cost to remove over-booking, for example? Where is their evidence?

I very much doubt that that is done via a simple spreadsheet.  What kinds of evidence are you looking for here, specifically?

ten seconds on google:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4401096/Experts-reveal-airlines-overbook-seats.html

Includes a ted talk.

 

And of course, some perspective is probably warranted:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/11/142239/why-do-airlines-overbook

Quote

Of the 613 million people who flew on major US carriers in 2015, 46,000 were involuntarily denied boarding, according to data from the Department of Transportation -- less than 0.008%.

 

 

And some information on what really happens when you get involuntarily bumped (which as I believe I've mentioned, almost never happens):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/04/10/why-do-airlines-overbook-flights/?utm_term=.bc3bf248b6aa

 

Quote

DOT requires each airline to 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. Those travelers who don’t get to fly are frequently entitled to “denied boarding compensation” in the form of a check or cash. The amount depends on the price of their ticket and the length of the delay:

 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Swordfish,

This is a bit more than people "bitching about the inconvenience".  

 

 

I didn't say this was just about people bitching about the inconvenience, Scot.  So i don't know why you are quoting that.

Quote

This guy got multiple confirmations that he would be allowed to fly and at the last minute, after he had boarded, after he'd gotten settled the Airline delayed the flight and told him to get off and give his seat to someone they deemed more important.  

Are you under the impression that i do not understand what occurred here? because I just laid out for you what likely happened, and it's mostly the same as what you posted here.

I can think of no reason why you believe simply re-stating what happened will somehow persuade me that your outrage about the bumping is justified here, or that it qualifies as some sort of rebuttal.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

I didn't say this was just about people bitching about the inconvenience, Scot.  So i don't know why you are quoting that.

Are you under the impression that i do not understand what occurred here? because I just laid out for you what likely happened, and it's mostly the same as what you posted here.

I can think of no reason why you believe simply re-stating what happened will somehow persuade me that your outrage about the bumping is justified here, or that it qualifies as some sort of rebuttal.

 

Because the Louis CK video that you linked is about "bitching and inconvienence".  

I acknowledge that Airlines bump people all the time.  Most of the time they do it by paying people to fly later and the bumps are voluntary.

Now, this situation is not your "typical" bump or are you going to claim that airlines bump people who have gotten seated and settled into their seats all the time then they arbitrarily set about selecting passengers who don't get to go where they paid the airline to take them to make room for airline employees?

[S John]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

After the leggings debacle two weeks ago, United promptly reloads and shoots itself in the other foot.  Way to go, fuckheads.  A large chunk of their employees have been shitting on passengers for years as their passive-aggressive revenge for the cuts in benefits and perks during their bankruptcy restructuring, although it was the pilots who lost by far the most as their pension benefits were cut drastically under PBGC rules.

Ah yes, disgruntled pilots, the key to a successful airline.  

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because the Louis CK video that you linked is about "bitching and inconvienence".  

I acknowledge that Airlines bump people all the time.  Most of the time they do it by paying people to fly later and the bumps are voluntary.

Now, this situation is not your "typical" bump or are you going to claim that airlines bump people who have gotten seated and settled into their seats all the time then

See links above.  i've already posted link to answer both the question of how often this happens, and the procedures which are followed when it does.

i don't know why you keep adding that 'already settled in their seats' part, as if it's some kind of game changer here.  of all the inconveniences of being bumped from a flight, I'd suggest that 'already settled in your seat' is the least of them.

 

Quote

they arbitrarily set about selecting passengers who don't get to go where they paid the airline to take them to make room for airline employees?

The passengers always get to go where they paid the airline to take them, Scot.  Now you're just being disingenuous.