Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[JohnK]

Perhaps part of the solution is that airlines be prevented from making a profit off oversales?

I don't understand why the airlines were ever allowed to profit from overselling.

Oh and downgrades. Full refund + compensation should be the minimum. They'll never oversell or downgrade again.

 

[codash1099]

And now a change on policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...erm=.126ef409d06b&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

 

[Mrmaxwell]

And now a change on policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...erm=.126ef409d06b&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

A few comments; I would love to understand how this crew booking process works. When did United know they needed crew on this flight? Were they booked long before the flight boarded or a few minutes after boarding commenced?

"Under a new policy...airline crews are required to check in at least an hour before a flight leaves"

"crews who are not checked in within the 60-minute window will have to book the next available flight"

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A few comments; I would love to understand how this crew booking process works. When did United know they needed crew on this flight? Were they booked long before the flight boarded or a few minutes after boarding commenced?

On this particular flight the crew turned up after boarding had completed.

 

[oz_mark]

A few comments; I would love to understand how this crew booking process works. When did United know they needed crew on this flight? Were they booked long before the flight boarded or a few minutes after boarding commenced?

Accoridng to the Wall Steet Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/united...d-uproar-over-passengers-treatment-1492370286)

Last Sunday evening, Republic Airways Holdings Inc., the regional airline operating the flight for United, asked an hour before departure for four of its crew members to take the place of passengers, according to a person familiar with the matter. The crew was needed the next day at the flight’s destination in Louisville, Ky., the person said. They had been delayed by a mechanical problem earlier. United agreed, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

But the two pilots and two flight attendants didn’t arrive at the gate until a few minutes before departure, according to United’s pilots union. All the passengers were already seated.

 

[jb747]

Perhaps another component of the solution will be to discontinue refunds for no shows. It's a very common practice in some places. Some people even book multiple tickets with different airlines, at different times, so that they have the option of leaving (work) when they choose. Overbooking is, in part, a counter to no shows.

So, a ban that gets both sides of the equation...no refunds, no offloads. Fair?

 

[amaroo]

Perhaps another component of the solution will be to discontinue refunds for no shows. It's a very common practice in some places. Some people even book multiple tickets with different airlines, at different times, so that they have the option of leaving (work) when they choose. Overbooking is, in part, a counter to no shows.

So, a ban that gets both sides of the equation...no refunds, no offloads. Fair?

I agree with this. Pay, fly or cancel - otherwise you lose your coin.

 

[JohnK]

So, a ban that gets both sides of the equation...no refunds, no offloads. Fair?

Sounds fair to me but those paying for flexible airfares may not think so.

Personally I don't understand why people book multiple flights on multiple carriers and then not bother to notify the airline. Very small percentage of travelers but extremely selfish practice.

 

[Quickstatus]

There should be normal tickets and standby tickets
Normal tickets = boarding guaranteed if checked in
Standby tickets = boarding not guaranteed, unable to checkin, must present to checkin counter

Standby ticket is only standby for a certain time period - eg am/pm/calendar day.
If a standby is not given a seat within that time period then fare is refunded less an admin fee if unsuccessful.
Not refunded if not present when name called.
If successful an additional success fee is payable.
Standby tickets are if successful more expensive than a normal ticket

Number of seats = number of normal tickets

A limited number of tickets may be sold on a standby basis
Standby ticket cannot trump a normal ticket.
Standby tickets are activated by presenting to checkin counter. Only unsuccessful activated standby tickets are refunded less admin fee.
Can only activate one standby at a time
Unlimited standby tickets per pax per day. But non refundable if not activated in person at checkin counter.
Can only activate the next ticket when the previous flight checkin closes.

Normal ticket may be non refundable or refundable.
A refundable normal ticket becomes non refundable when checkin opens which for some airlines may be 48hrs preflight. That seat is then open for standby ticket
A standby ticket is not refundable if passenger does not take up offer at the checkin counter.

A normal ticket can be automatically checked in when checkin opens by paying an additional fee.

If aircraft is substituted for a smaller aircraft at last minute such that number of normal tickets > number of seats, the passengers that checked in last are not boarded until tickets = seats. These passengers are refunded in full, compo paid and put on standby and flown for free.

A normal ticket can be converted to standby on a nondiscount basis before checkin opens (if there are standby tickets still available) but then gets to back of standby queue and must pay the success fee if a seat becomes available.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sounds fair to me but those paying for flexible airfares may not think so.

Personally I don't understand why people book multiple flights on multiple carriers and then not bother to notify the airline. Very small percentage of travelers but extremely selfish practice.

But that's reflected in the price of those flexible tickets... a quick search tomorrow MEL-SYD for Qantas reveals the cheapest business class fare, one way, is $810. All the flights in the morning, and most of the flights for the rest of the day are $1290. One way. QF is asking the equivalent of a return economy class ticket to Europe for a one hour flight to SYD.

If you can afford to make multiple bookings across multiple flights for that sort of money, you're likely a CIP for QF/VA.

 

[anat0l]

I don't understand why the airlines were ever allowed to profit from overselling.

Oh and downgrades. Full refund + compensation should be the minimum. They'll never oversell or downgrade again.

Why don't we make it a criminal offence which would result in mandatory jail sentence for the CEO of the airline?

That... not some messing around with pitiful monetary compensations... will force airlines never to think of overselling or downgrading ever again.

 

[Quickstatus]

Why should it be criminal?

 

[anat0l]

Why should it be criminal?

We want consequences that will actually force the hand of airlines to do the right thing. Particularly as it seems the public has completely lost faith in the airlines to self-regulate and to change their practices on their own.

Accountants can factor in financial penalties as part of their risk analysis so it makes it possible to still do the wrong thing but it is "acceptable" to the company. It is substantially more difficult to put a price on jail time or a mark on the criminal record.

They say you can't put a price on your dignity, but we've seen CEOs do or oversee many undignified acts substantially without consequence, and sometimes even with the full support of the government.

 

[Quickstatus]

I think much can be achieved by a cultural change within the industry along with the banning of contracts of carriage that are substantially in favour of the airline. Consumer law as it applies to much of consumer activity okay should apply also to the airline industry.

 

[JohnK]

Why should it be criminal?

Not quite criminal but I pay $10,000 for a SYD-LAX-JFK return in business and after flying the first leg in business and the JFK-LAX in business I am downgraded to economy for the LAX-SYD sector and the airline thinks it is OK to refund me $500 as that is the highest flexible economy airfare on the day. Sound familiar? Ludicrous that they can away with this rubbish after holding on to the money for so long.

If they need to downgrade me for whatever reason from business to economy then the airline should offer full refund of return airfare of $5,000. Fly economy for free and then some sort of compensation for the invonvenience caused. More than likely a one way in business JFK-LAX-SYD for use in next 12 months.

They won't downgrade again without thinking of the consequences. Will they?

 

[equus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

A 'reasonable' belief is exclusive to the Qantas crew member at the time. If they say that they have that 'reasonable belief', then its game over. The 'contract' says nothing about having to demonstrate that 'reasonable belief' at the time - you are instructed to de-board. You may be able to seek redress later, but your cough is still off that plane, on pain of security enforcement.

And there lies the issue - and the conflict between obeying crew directions immediately, and the issues on some airlines with "incorrect" directions. Agree with what you have said, but it is the reliability of the "reasonableness" and the lack of adequacy of any possible redress that is the problem.

"Reasonable belief" is not exclusive to the crew member - it has to have a demonstrable basis that a court can follow (hence the "reasonable" part). However, as others have stated, debates with crew are not to be encouraged, as in emergency situations, (or even not), the crew needs to be in charge and able to be effective, which requires the ability to issue instructions and expect compliance.

I believe that this comes down to training - and the backing of the airline and then ultimately the courts. If crew are to be obeyed immediately and without question, then there has to be trust that they are indeed giving lawful instructions. They will only know this if they have received appropriate training - which comes from the airline. It is the motives behind the sort of training being devised and delivered, as well as compliance with the training, that can be used to influence improved outcomes. The problem arises when the "correctness" of training, or compliance with it becomes driven by compromises. Is it the crew member taking the easy way out, or is it the training not being strictly correct (for commercial reasons - e.g. lead pax to believe an instruction to be downgraded so that a relative of an FA can sit in a higher cabin has to be complied with, or that you can be ejected for convenience so that we can fly someone else)? If there is a commercial incentive to train staff to abuse their position (i.e. incorrectly tell them they have the power), so that compensation can be avoided, how will this be changed?

If there were clear and substantial consequences for incorrect directions, there would be an incentive to get the training correct. If the training is correct, and the crew only give lawful instructions (because they know what is and is not able to be demanded), then passengers will be confident to obey immediately. At present, it would appear that this is not the case, so of course things come to a head.

What sort of consequences would make things real? For the airline itself, financial will obviously come into play, but all too often that gets swept away or ignored - too hard for a pax to take on the airline, not aware of their rights etc. (see the Easyjet offloaded pax thread here). Might be considered harsh, but a crew member making an unlawful demand should be subject to criminal penalties (as well as civil liability for the airline). A criminal prosecution would be able to be maintained by law enforcement or other parties, not left to a single pax to take on an airline.

Before anyone gets too worked up about the possible consequences for the crew, the idea would be to make the airline take the training seriously (and the unions should push this if their members are potentially exposed to criminal penalties). Properly trained, the crew would then make sure they had "reasonable belief" that the request was permitted - and so would be safe.

On the other hand, those crew using threats of handcuffs or force against passengers to make them accept downgrades so that others can be favoured will have to accept the possible consequences.

 

[oz_mark]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

What sort of consequences would make things real? For the airline itself, financial will obviously come into play, but all too often that gets swept away or ignored - too hard for a pax to take on the airline, not aware of their rights etc. (see the Easyjet offloaded pax thread here). Might be considered harsh, but a crew member making an unlawful demand should be subject to criminal penalties (as well as civil liability for the airline). A criminal prosecution would be able to be maintained by law enforcement or other parties, not left to a single pax to take on an airline.

Before anyone gets too worked up about the possible consequences for the crew, the idea would be to make the airline take the training seriously (and the unions should push this if their members are potentially exposed to criminal penalties). Properly trained, the crew would then make sure they had "reasonable belief" that the request was permitted - and so would be safe.

On the other hand, those crew using threats of handcuffs or force against passengers to make them accept downgrades so that others can be favoured will have to accept the possible consequences.

The problem with this thread is that it is mixing up what various airlines under various jurisdictions can do. United, Qantas and EasyJet operate under very different legal frameworks when it comes to passenger rights and so on. What's unlawful in one place, may be quite lawful somewhere else.

US airlines are very rules driven, and, on the surface, it seems that the rules were followed to the letter. That would suggest that it is the rules themselves that have issues, and indeed, given the policy updates coming out of various US airlines, it seems they agree.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Whatever the jurisdiction, universal concepts such as respect and dignity are not difficult ideals to grasp. Start from there and many issues will sort themselves out. Rebalance the relationship between airline and airline passenger. Civilised behaviour does not need a lot of regulation.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Perhaps another component of the solution will be to discontinue refunds for no shows. It's a very common practice in some places. Some people even book multiple tickets with different airlines, at different times, so that they have the option of leaving (work) when they choose. Overbooking is, in part, a counter to no shows.

So, a ban that gets both sides of the equation...no refunds, no offloads. Fair?

absolutely - why should you be able to do that! No show then you lose the money......

 

[drron]

And it was not the "crew"but a gate agent who came on board to issue the directive so pushing the boundaries further.
In the Hawaii handcuff scenario it was again the gate agent who came on board.
Both instances were not being denied boarding as they had boarded-that influences the reasons that they can throw you off.In both cases it was stated so that someone else could board-that is not a legal directive under UA's contract of carriage.