Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Except there would be no redress from crew instructions as they are issued for safety and security grounds.

By redress I mean complain to customer care, not in a legal way.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I have a feeling that any kind of removal from aircraft is going to be very fraught with risk, lawful or not.

Basically, the pax will say, "I'm not going. Touch me and I'll sue." What's the crew to do?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I've read United Economy is know as Fight Club.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Viewfromthewing has received some criticism forbeing potentially conflicted... blogs rely on the airlines for information and want to have a close relationship with those airlines. VFTW's view have been discredited by some for their support for UA - at least initially until they saw the tide of public opinion was against them. Even UA's CEO's views are against VFTW (VFTW stated the passnger was incorrect not to follow crew instructions). Neither UA nor any other entity has mentioned or relied on the 'keep the system going' argument, or that 'must fly' has any legal basis.

The bit about VFTW's credibility is irrelevant. I mentioned the network thing to make the point that gratuitous delays of aircraft have a much greater impact than just the aircraft in question, which I hope is self evident.

I agree passengers should not debate crew instructions. But there seems to be some confusion between 'instructions' and 'requests'. Airlines and relevant rules/laws/legislation define 'instructions'. So there's little doubt over those. This was not a case of defying an instruction. How does the passenger know? because it's in the contract of carriage which they acknowledged at the time of booking.

There most certainly are questions re 'instructions' - isn't that the whole basis of the Dao thing? I don't anyone has heard recording of what was said to him before the security guys arrived, so don't know in what terms the de-boarding was presented to him.

This was not a case of defying an instruction. How does the passenger know? because it's in the contract of carriage which they acknowledged at the time of booking.

But to say we know the rules because we acknowledge the contract of carriage at the time of booking, is, I'm very sorry to say, just :shock:. Do we all need our lawyers on speed dial to check interpretation, and precedents if we are to have a discussion with the crew over one of their instructions? I'd much prefer to rely on common sense.

How much time for discussion? It depends on the airline's commercial incentives. If they want to miss curfew and incur the delays in missing that curfew rather than fork out $1000 to IDB a passenger, that's their choice. Or they could choose not to oversell. It seems airlines thought they had the ability to get aggressive because they could rely on law enforcement to back them up. They thought they had the upper hand. The alternative is for them to start being nice, calm, reasonable, and polite in these situations.

Its not just about overselling, or IDBing. We are talking in our recent back-and-forth about a passenger having the 'right' to debate an instruction from the crew, until, in your words, 'discuss contractual issues to reach an agreeable outcome' .

And an 'agreeable outcome' means agreeable to both sides. It isn't in the airline's control as to when or if the passenger agrees, at any point. To allow a passenger to hold a flight (and follow-on flights) to ransom on board until some potentially outrageous demand is met is, I repeat, a recipe for anarchy. Of course, the thing is not to allow the passengers to board in the first place, so that 'discussions' can carry on at the gate to everyone's heart is content.

Why should Dr Tao have complied and left the plane? For the greater good of the system? Perhaps his decision to stay will actually turn out for the greater good of the rest of us?

I'm sure it will, and more power to Dao. But I still don't think that passengers should be allowed to discuss and debate crew instructions (or if an 'instruction' is really a 'suggestion') to the point that they, and all the others who also reckon they are on a good thing, may reach a point where the airline simply cannot comply. At some point the airline has to say 'enough is enough. Rather than get security from now on when they reach the end of their authorised bargaining (and that will no doubt increase too, as a result of this), I dare say they will just cancel the flight, and everyone gets off, and loses. I don't think the 'Dao' on that flight will have so much sympathy, do you?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I have a feeling that any kind of removal from aircraft is going to be very fraught with risk, lawful or not.

Basically, the pax will say, "I'm not going. Touch me and I'll sue." What's the crew to do?

Cancel the flight and de-board everyone. See how long the 'touch me and I'll sue' attitude lasts.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

And an 'agreeable outcome' means agreeable to both sides. It isn't in the airline's control as to when or if the passenger agrees, at any point. To allow a passenger to hold a flight (and follow-on flights) to ransom on board until some potentially outrageous demand is met is, I repeat, a recipe for anarchy.

But the UA CEO has stated that no lawfully boarded passenger will be removed in future, and law enforcement will not be used. He doesn't share the view that this will lead to anarchy.

 

[get me outta here]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

When travelling with their partner and only asking and then assaulting one person off.

Random computer selection can't be random because factors such astute we come into play
fare paid
value to airline
any connecting flights
checked luggage
travelling group
minors
previous delays
previous denied boarding
etc?

 

[kpc]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

This a 69 yo man!! UA are very lucky he didn't have a heart attack and die!

 

[DC3]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Cancel the flight and de-board everyone .... .

How come the airlines don't think of this?

 

[get me outta here]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

One report said they did do that in the end and then 'cleaned up the cabin' before reboarding. I'm looking forward to hearing what the sequence of events actually was, and who pays what to whom. All those other pax deserve recompense too.

How come the airlines don't think of this?

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

One report said they did do that in the end and then 'cleaned up the cabin' before reboarding. I'm looking forward to hearing what the sequence of events actually was, and who pays what to whom. All those other pax deserve recompense too.

They did as the passenger got back on after he was removed.
I would think anyone onboard would have a good chance at a modest financial settlement from UA as well as the millions they will pay out to the passenger removed.

 

[DC3]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

How so? There's no requirement to obey an unlawful instruction ...

Spot on. The direction needs to be lawful.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

How come the airlines don't think of this?

Because this would have cost more than 4 x $800 plus vouchers.
They went the cheap and nasty method

 

[Bundy Bear]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

They did as the passenger got back on after he was removed.
I would think anyone onboard would have a good chance at a modest financial settlement from UA as well as the millions they will pay out to the passenger removed.

I seem to remember reading that United refunded all the passengers

And that's the bit that the lawyers can debate. Was it an IDB or not ? Given that the boarding process wasn't complete, the flight became oversold once the 4 crew showed up, and no volunteers could be found.

I'm with RooFlyer here. I would obey crew member instructions and seek redress later.

And where does that get you.

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

It’s hard to find examples of worse decision-making and customer treatment than United Airlines having a passenger dragged from an overbooked plane. But United’s shabby treatment of Geoff Fearns, including a threat to place him in handcuffs, comes close.

Another recent article suggests that United are in trouble.

United Airlines Dragging Passenger Off Plane Was Illegal, Says Lawyer — Here's Why

“It’s illegal,” “You can’t remove, under the current rules, a passenger once they’re seated on the aircraft. You can deny them entry if you’re overbooked, but once they’re on the aircraft, it’s a completely different set of rules.”

I would hope to it goes to court to clear up any ambiguity, we can all understand being denied boarding because you aren't on the plane but to take passengers off the plane is not right.

At this the latest incident has brought it to a head, United just becomes the fall guys for overbooking problem.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

But the UA CEO has stated that no lawfully boarded passenger will be removed in future, and law enforcement will not be used. He doesn't share the view that this will lead to anarchy.

Well, good on him and I think you are verballing him with that last bit. Presumably it'll take a bit longer to board and cost a bit operationally to make absolutely certain no-one gets on board who can't be flown, but we'll probably be the better for it.

But other than that, the comment is irrelevant. You have contended that, in the event of an on-board disagreement between a pax and crew on some instruction, there should be a commercial discussion until there is an agreed outcome. I'm contending that that's unworkable, and will lead to anarchy, as inevitably some pax will try to exploit the 'kinder, gentler' approach for unreasonable gain, and once one pax gets close to being unreasonably 'bought off', others may follow, and you'll get an on-board 'Mexican Stand-off'.

Then what? What do you think the new United manual will say about this situation?

How come the airlines don't think of this?

'This' being everyone gets de-boarded in the event that a passenger can't be satisfied and the airline can't forcibly remove them.

Well, I'll bet airlines have thought of it (and there are stories that the Dao aircraft WAS totally de-boarded, before being re-boarded and operated), however because they were previously allowed the latitude of acting unreasonably and using or threatening 'security' in inappropriate situations, they haven't had to use it.

But again, lets have a think. If a passenger gets on board, and acts unreasonably but not in a threatening situation, and there is no imperative to obey a crew instruction, merely to have a discussion until agreement is reached, and they can't be forced off ... what happens?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Originally Posted by MEL_Traveller How so? There's no requirement to obey an unlawful instruction ...

Spot on. The direction needs to be lawful.

Agree, but who's to decide during the on-board 'discussion' whether the direction is lawful or not? Crew may be confident in their direction and passenger may be equally confident in their opinion that it isn't.

Then what? Each party dial-a-lawyer? Judge Judy at each departure gate?

All over the world?

C'mon people, lets get back to common sense rather than debating legalities. You get on the aircraft, you do as you are told - put the window shade up, turn the phone off, sit in your allotted seat, get off the plane with appropriate (updated, regulator specified) compensation etc. If you've been hard done by, sue the airline till the pips squeak and I'll be cheering from the back.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Some funny memes here. (Dont need twitface account)

https://twitter.com/UnitedOverBooks
https://twitter.com/hashtag/NewUnitedAirlinesMottos



and of course there is this one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOUoNy7EmPA

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Well, good on him and I think you are verballing him with that last bit. Presumably it'll take a bit longer to board and cost a bit operationally to make absolutely certain no-one gets on board who can't be flown, but we'll probably be the better for it.

But other than that, the comment is irrelevant. You have contended that, in the event of an on-board disagreement between a pax and crew on some instruction, there should be a commercial discussion until there is an agreed outcome. I'm contending that that's unworkable, and will lead to anarchy, as inevitably some pax will try to exploit the 'kinder, gentler' approach for unreasonable gain, and once one pax gets close to being unreasonably 'bought off', others may follow, and you'll get an on-board 'Mexican Stand-off'.

Then what? What do you think the new United manual will say about this situation?




'This' being everyone gets de-boarded in the event that a passenger can't be satisfied and the airline can't forcibly remove them.

Well, I'll bet airlines have thought of it (and there are stories that the Dao aircraft WAS totally de-boarded, before being re-boarded and operated), however because they were previously allowed the latitude of acting unreasonably and using or threatening 'security' in inappropriate situations, they haven't had to use it.

But again, lets have a think. If a passenger gets on board, and acts unreasonably but not in a threatening situation, and there is no imperative to obey a crew instruction, merely to have a discussion until agreement is reached, and they can't be forced off ... what happens?

No. I agree with you totally when it comes to crew instructions... which is the term you refer to. Passengers must comply with crew instructions.

The issue is on the matter of purely commercial requests. They are completely distinct from crew instructions.

Passengers are aware of the difference between an instruction related to the safety and security of the aircraft (you are ineligible to sit in an exit row, or you need to move for weight and balance, or you need to move because this emergency exit is inoperable), and a commercial request (we need to take your seat because it has been sold to another passenger, or we need your seat because we would like to get a crew to another station). And indeed law enforcement are as well (hence why they shouldn't have got involved in this latest incident).

The two in no way can be confused. If a passenger disobeys a crew instruction law enforcement can be called and the passenger removed.

 

[drron]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

They did as the passenger got back on after he was removed.
I would think anyone onboard would have a good chance at a modest financial settlement from UA as well as the millions they will pay out to the passenger removed.

Though at that stage he was concussed-the proposed statement of claim states that was one of the diagnoses at the hospital.As well when you look at him being dragged up the aisle he is unconscious.So he got back on the plane as a direct result of his significant head injury.

 

[jb747]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Change aircraft. Don't issue a new boarding pass....

Whilst this is overall a pretty amazing event, I'm a little bemused by discussions about obeying the instructions. It would be an unlawful instruction if you were told to punch the passenger next door. In that case, you're being told to do something that itself is against the law. But, getting off the aircraft is not against the law, so what you're being told to do is not an unlawful instruction. Whether the gate agent had the right to issue the instruction is a different argument entirely. So, whilst it may not be in accordance with any 'conditions', it isn't an illegal instruction.

Anyway, the lawyers will have fun sorting it all out, and I'm sure the outcome won't be what anyone actually wants.

I wonder how much would have actually been required to get a volunteer? Not points or such rubbish, but actual $. Hotel room and about $1k, and you wouldn't have seen me for dust.