Overbooking, Flightcrew over paying passengers, the United incident

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Captain Hindsight says why would they stop at $800??? From 400 to 800, then bring in the muscle? How about $1000? $1500? Everybody has a price as they say.

DM,

Apparently, there's a cap:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

[MisterOJ]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DM,

Apparently, there's a cap:

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

The way I've read it, the cap is just how much they are legally required to pay if someone does not volunteer and is bumped from a flight. I don't think there is anything that would prevent an airline from offering more to get someone to not board voluntarily.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Someone asked up-thread if first class can be overbooked. Yes it can, and it sucks! 

As to the incident at hand, this has all been overblown. The only reason it's getting so much attention is because we can all empathize with terrible flight experiences, even if we haven been dragged off a plane bloodied and unconscious. 

[Tempra]

34 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

The way I've read it, the cap is just how much they are legally required to pay if someone does not volunteer and is bumped from a flight. I don't think there is anything that would prevent an airline from offering more to get someone to not board voluntarily.

Indeed, I don't see anything in the rules that would have prevented United from providing free tickets on future flights in lieu of cash compensation.  That's how airlines used to handle overlooking by providing free tickets anywhere in CONUS or region (for international flights).

[Dr. Pepper]

26 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Indeed, I don't see anything in the rules that would have prevented United from providing free tickets on future flights in lieu of cash compensation.  That's how airlines used to handle overlooking by providing free tickets anywhere in CONUS or region (for international flights).

Free tickets are useless to people who fly infrequently or who can not afford the costs of travel even if the flight is paid.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 hours ago, Swordfish said:

They offered this guy $800.

I doubt very much that he paid anywhere near that for his ticket.

They offered everyone on the plane that, and only 2 accepted. It's not like he was alone in refusing the offer. As others have mentioned, once you're on the plane and seated I think you're pretty much in go mode at that point.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They offered everyone on the plane that, and only 2 accepted. It's not like he was alone in refusing the offer. As others have mentioned, once you're on the plane and seated I think you're pretty much in go mode at that point.

Especially if you've checked a bag. Dealing with any unforeseen changes with checked bags is not the airlines' forte.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Week said:

Especially if you've checked a bag. Dealing with any unforeseen changes with checked bags is not the airlines' forte.

Yeah, $800 bucks is not a small amount of money for me, but given the hassle of travel, it's going to take more than that to get me out of my seat once I've boarded. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

On 4/11/2017 at 8:53 AM, MisterOJ said:

News coming out today that the guy they dragged off is a pretty scummy individual himself, so United has that going for them at least.

Totally irrelevant.

[Swordfish]

5 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Well, United's value just depreciated $1.5 billion because of this incident. I don't believe getting company employees to where they needed to be would have cost that much either (even renting out a helicopter).

And?  This kind of stuff happens all the time.  there was no way to predict the way this turned out.  period.

They acted completely rationally based on the process that has worked out pretty much fine many, many times.

it wasn't even United employees who assaulted the guy.

 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone asked up-thread if first class can be overbooked. Yes it can, and it sucks! 

As to the incident at hand, this has all been overblown. The only reason it's getting so much attention is because we can all empathize with terrible flight experiences, even if we haven been dragged off a plane bloodied and unconscious. 

Yep.

 

Likely events:

Airline makes routine decision

Customer gets angry and acts like a dick

Security over reacts and assaults the guy.

News at 11.

 

Customer service interactions always have some instances where things go sideways.  it's an imperfect world.  There are millions of people flying at any given moment, so I'ma ctually surprised stuff like this doesn't happen more often.  Especially given the way that air travel tends to bring out the worst in people, in my experience.

But once they told him he had to get off, he pretty much had to get off.  There is no feasible way i can think of where they can allow him to stay on the plane at that point.

 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They offered everyone on the plane that, and only 2 accepted. It's not like he was alone in refusing the offer. As others have mentioned, once you're on the plane and seated I think you're pretty much in go mode at that point.

I'm not discounting any of that.  Someone suggested that the amount of compensation offered was likely less than the ticket price.  That was the context of me posting the $800 comment.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

And?  This kind of stuff happens all the time.  there was no way to predict the way this turned out.  period.

They acted completely rationally based on the process that has worked out pretty much fine many, many times.

it wasn't even United employees who assaulted the guy.

 

Yep.

 

Likely events:

Airline makes routine decision

Customer gets angry and acts like a dick

Security over reacts and assaults the guy.

News at 11.

 

Customer service interactions always have some instances where things go sideways.  it's an imperfect world.  There are millions of people flying at any given moment, so I'ma ctually surprised stuff like this doesn't happen more often.  Especially given the way that air travel tends to bring out the worst in people, in my experience.

But once they told him he had to get off, he pretty much had to get off.  There is no feasible way i can think of where they can allow him to stay on the plane at that point.

 

I'm not discounting any of that.  Someone suggested that the amount of compensation offered was likely less than the ticket price.  That was the context of me posting the $800 comment.

 

Wow, you are going out of your way to offer apology for United.  United screwed up.  It may be an unanticipated result but United screwed up.  Both in the handling of "denial of boarding" (after the passenger was aboard) and in the follow up to the assault on their passenger.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Imagine this scenario.  You go to McDonald's and order a Bic Mac.You pay your money, but before you get your order, they tell you they've run out of Big Macs, and because the manager has to work a double shift, they are giving your Big Mac to him.  They offer you a voucher for two Big Macs, tomorrow.  sound ridiculous?  It is.  What makes an airline any different.

The flight wasn't overbooked.  All the passengers had taken their seats.  Only the airline's incompetence at transporting personnel to where they were needed is what caused this.  The regulations need to be changed so airlines can't pull this BS.

 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow, you are going out of your way to offer apology for United.  United screwed up.  It may be an unanticipated result but United screwed up.  Both in the handling of "denial of boarding" (after the passenger was aboard) and in the follow up to the assault on their passenger.

You keep saying that over and over like simply repeating it will somehow make it true.  I've already given you my argument about why i disagree.

if you have something more to add, by all means do so.  if you want to simply keep beating the same 'I'm right because <reasons> drum, that's also up to you, but I don't find it particularly interesting or worth any more time going back and forth over.

[MisterOJ]

8 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Totally irrelevant.

It doesn't excuse the way United and (more importantly) the police handled the situation. But, after finding out his background, I feel no sympathy for the scumbag doctor. Both things can be true.

[mormont]

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

And?  This kind of stuff happens all the time.  there was no way to predict the way this turned out.  period.

They acted completely rationally based on the process that has worked out pretty much fine many, many times.

I haven't read any other stories of passengers being forcibly removed from a plane after boarding, but from this post it appears that you have. Can you link us to these many, many stories? I appreciate that on these occasions it worked out fine, which makes it odd that people wrote about them, but they'd be useful for comparison.

Quote

Likely events:

Airline makes routine decision

Customer gets angry and acts like a dick

Security over reacts and assaults the guy.

News at 11.

What makes the bolded bit 'likely'? I'm unaware of any evidence that the passenger got angry and/or acted like a dick. He insisted he didn't want to go. Does that fit the bill, for you? It doesn't for me.

Quote

There is no feasible way i can think of where they can allow him to stay on the plane at that point.

I can think of one: they do that exact thing, and allow him to stay on the plane.

What's the worst that can happen in that scenario, exactly? Is the authority of the airline fatally undermined in some way?

12 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

It doesn't excuse the way United and (more importantly) the police handled the situation. But, after finding out his background, I feel no sympathy for the scumbag doctor. Both things can be true.

One of them might not even be true, it turns out: there is some question over whether this is the same Dr David Dao. (Not that it matters. Nothing he did in the past forms any part of this incident.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-airlines-doctor-david-dao-drugs-gay-sex-court-documents-oscar-munoz-a7680221.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

And?  This kind of stuff happens all the time.  there was no way to predict the way this turned out.  period.

They acted completely rationally based on the process that has worked out pretty much fine many, many times.

it wasn't even United employees who assaulted the guy.

 Eh, if a $1.5 billion stock drop isn't an indicator that United fucked up here, I'm not sure what is.  

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Eh, if a $1.5 billion stock drop isn't an indicator that United fucked up here, I'm not sure what is.  

Sure.  in hindsight.  but there was no way to predict the way this would unfold, and every reason to believe it would turn out fine, as it has many times in the past.

Either way, it seems likely they will discontinue the process given the backlash.

[Robin Of House Hill]

22 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

 

22 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

It doesn't excuse the way United and (more importantly) the police handled the situation. But, after finding out his background, I feel no sympathy for the scumbag doctor. Both things can be true.

Except that the context of your sentence implied that United's action was ameliorated to some degree by the doctor's past legal problems.  So, I stand by my statement that it is irrelevant.

Quote

"News coming out today that the guy they dragged off is a pretty scummy individual himself, so United has that going for them at least."

 

[MisterOJ]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

One of them might not even be true, it turns out: there is some question over whether this is the same Dr David Dao. (Not that it matters. Nothing he did in the past forms any part of this incident.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-airlines-doctor-david-dao-drugs-gay-sex-court-documents-oscar-munoz-a7680221.html

Except that, Dr. Dao has confirmed that he was the man dragged off the flight. 

Just now, Robin Of House Hill said:

Except that the context of your sentence implied that United's action was ameliorated to some degree by the doctor's past legal problems.  So, I stand by my statement that it is irrelevant.

 

I meant that last line somewhat sarcastically, mostly because I was pretty disgusted by all parties involved.

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 minute ago, MisterOJ said:

I meant that last line somewhat sarcastically, mostly because I was pretty disgusted by all parties involved.

My bad.  Without visual or vocal cues, I have this annoying habit of expecting that people mean what they say.