Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

When you say "bumping rules", do you mean along the lines of assuming that overbooking will be banned?

I'd like to see how overbooking would be banned, viz. its definition, its enforcement and how it will encourage airlines not to break those rules.

It would be easy to ban overbooking, and in 2017 there's absolutely no reason for it to continue. If an airline sells a non-refundable, non-changeable seat, that seat should belong to the passenger. concert halls don't oversell seats... if someone doesn't show their seat is left vacant.

Airlines claim they have sophisticated systems to determine how many seats they will sell on any flight... if that's the case, set the parameters on the side of caution.

Would fares go up? unlikely. Eu261 pays hefty compensation for delays, cancellations and overbooking. Fares haven't gone up in response. Competition would drive airlines to manage overbooking better, not to increase fares.

Perhaps governments should look at airline contracts, and the suposed power given to airlines to enforce issues. This passenger was not removed because they were abusive, they got upset after they were told to leave. There was no basis for them to be told to leave, not even, it seems, in trespass (they were lawfully on the plane, with a contract, and the contract doesn't allow for off-loading after they have boarded... unless there is a safety related issue. Here there was none.)

Perhaps there needs to be an independent mechanism to determine matters where airlines or crew decide they don't want a passenger on board. There seem to be instances where airlines aren't handling it adequately by themselves. Maybe this means a 24 hour hotline, justice of the peace or similar, that can make a quick initial determination one way or the other.

Safety needs to to be the number one priority. Airlines need proper regulation and authority to enforce safety.

But there was no safety issue here.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

The so called travel expert GL backtracking after trying to defend UA yesterday and sparking outrage amongst his (? soon to be ex) readers!...and this will / could result in his blog taking a hit financially.

Wouldn't be the first time that he's outraged his populace, let alone other readers or the blogosphere for that matter. Why this one now?

 

[anat0l]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

It would be easy to ban overbooking, and in 2017 there's absolutely no reason for it to continue.

The regulation would have to make clear what is overbooking and what is not.

For example, if an aircraft goes tech and is replaced with an aircraft which has less seats available than the previous, obviously some people will need to be rescheduled (and a similar bid process to a bump will take place). But this is not overbooking, even though the consequences are similar.

If an airline sells a non-refundable, non-changeable seat, that seat should belong to the passenger.

What if the seat is refundable / changeable?

Would fares go up? unlikely. Eu261 pays hefty compensation for delays, cancellations and overbooking. Fares haven't gone up in response. Competition would drive airlines to manage overbooking better, not to increase fares.

You just said that overbooking would be banned. EU261 doesn't ban overbooking; it does set guidelines for what to do when it happens. Mind, hypothetically, even with the guidelines in place here, the incident might have still happened (i.e. this man dragged out). Throwing the maximum compensation at a passenger does not compel them to accept it, then we go back to the argument of whether involuntary bumping is not a safety-based directive and hence there is no legal compunction to remove the passenger.

It's not that fares would necessarily go up (unless you believe Michael O'Leary), but rather they won't go down or the need to provide for EU261 is a significant impost on airlines (who are struggling financially, so to speak). Whether or not this is considerable or codswallop is another argument.

This passenger was not removed because they were abusive, they got upset after they were told to leave. There was no basis for them to be told to leave, not even, it seems, in trespass (they were lawfully on the plane, with a contract, and the contract doesn't allow for off-loading after they have boarded... unless there is a safety related issue. Here there was none.)

Supposedly, banning overbooking would ensure that there would never need to be another incident where a passenger does not have to be removed from the aircraft, except for safety, health or other legal reasons (e.g. a criminal has boarded).

Can anyone think of another scenario?

Again, are we really only thinking of getting these rules tightened for real because a man was physically hurt? Does that mean that, in the absence of new regulation, if you are ever asked to leave and you don't want to (and you know you're not compromising safety, security or in trouble with the law), all you need to do is stay put and resist, because if you get roughed up by the authorities, you will be duly compensated or they wouldn't even risk it in the first place....

 

[malmacdowall]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/851805788851122177

Thats an USD$800million Drop....

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

It would be easy to ban overbooking, and in 2017 there's absolutely no reason for it to continue. If an airline sells a non-refundable, non-changeable seat, that seat should belong to the passenger. concert halls don't oversell seats... if someone doesn't show their seat is left vacant.

...................

But there was no safety issue here.

Nor was overbooking the issue here. They had the right number of pax for the number of seats. But then UA suddenly needed to find 4 seats for paxing crew that they weren't expecting. No idea how that occurred. But this incident is not the result of overbooking.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Once on the plane a passenger should not be removed to make way for another.
The only reason to remove such passengers would be for safety and medical related issues
Aircraft Weight issues perhaps would be the only other reason.

United still has not explained why the schedule of the 4 crew were more important than the schedules of all of the passengers already seated.

The issue is not because the passenger was a Doctor - that is irrelevant. A passenger's standing in society should not matter.

For most people airline travel is a commodity. Brand and reputation is therefore irrelevant. So UA will take a temporary hit and will recover.

 

[Flying Fox]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

UA CEO has a second attempt at an apology.

United shares fall as social media firestorm over forcibly removed passenger spreads to China

Chief executive Oscar Munoz called the incident "truly horrific" and promised a full review of the airline's policies by the end of April.

"No one should ever be treated this way. I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right," Mr Munoz said in a statement.

"I promise we will do better."

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Nor was overbooking the issue here. They had the right number of pax for the number of seats. But then UA suddenly needed to find 4 seats for paxing crew that they weren't expecting. No idea how that occurred. But this incident is not the result of overbooking.

Indeed, you are correct. This wasn't an overbooking. But overbooking is a far more common occurrence, and could be banned.

anat0l... various regulations have been drafted to allow for specific circumstances such as an equipment swap. This won't be a simple single line of regulation to effect a ban/change/whatever... but neither are airline contracts. If ailines can sent us an email with as many caveats as there are lines of text, they can equally write a comprehensive set of rules around overbooking and other contractual issues.

I agree EU261 doesn't ban overbooking, but it sure gives the airlines one hell of an incentive. Conditions in various Aussie airlines' contracts which say if they overbook they only need to 'accommodate you on the next available [company] service' all of a sudden become very expensive. So you reaccommodate on other airlines. You don't have to wait 24 hours for the next QF/VA service from Tokyo or Hong Kong or Los Angeles, you're out on the next Cathay Pacific or Singapore airlines flight.

I guess there are other potential scenarios where pax might be asked to leave... refusing to do a seat swap (where there is no safety issue). How about, in this current issue, if FA's had instructed pax to stop filming? and pax refused. Should that be grounds for removal from the aircraft because pax disobeyed instructions?

 

[kpc]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

UA CEO has a second attempt at an apology.

United shares fall as social media firestorm over forcibly removed passenger spreads to China

Chief executive Oscar Munoz called the incident "truly horrific" and promised a full review of the airline's policies by the end of April.

"No one should ever be treated this way. I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right," Mr Munoz said in a statement.

"I promise we will do better."

Too late...the damage has been done! Apparently millions have been wiped from UAs market value....I think the CEO would be feeling pretty uncomfortable atm, and must wonder whether his own position should be reviewed!

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Dare I post it, but here's another opinion.

I have to say, it sounds absolutely cold and it probably doesn't help that there is a strong collectively low opinion of the author here, but some of what is stated is true.

The Real Reason a Man Was Dragged Off That United Flight, and How to Stop It From Happening Again - View from the Wing

Naturally the author is taking a lot of flak here; had he been trying to give his opinion in a public forum, he'd probably been hit by a flying chair by now.

Everything in that article is perfectly factual. United handled the situation badly. The passenger handled the situation very badly (especially by running past security and back onto the aircraft after he'd been removed!) And the Chicago airport police handled it very badly as well.

No-one comes out of this blameless.

 

[clazman]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Offloading should be the last 4 to check-in ...

 

[Skyring]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

But by all means continue to allow your political views to cloud your analysis of these developments.

I beg your pardon? My political views are irrelevant here. Spicer's statements on Hitler and Syria and the Holocaust were way out of line, regardless of what administration he works for. I see that he's joined the backtrack brigade on this. Competence is the issue here, not political views.

For example, how would Richard Branson have handled this issue if it had occurred through some Virgin stuff-up?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Everything in that article is perfectly factual. United handled the situation badly. The passenger handled the situation very badly (especially by running past security and back onto the aircraft after he'd been removed!) And the Chicago airport police handled it very badly as well.

No-one comes out of this blameless.

You're blaming the victim, with a potential concussion and possibly in shock, for their actions in getting back on the aircraft?

The passenger didn't do anything wrong. If there were no grounds to be removed, and the passenger wasn't arrested, why shouldn't they get back on?

 

[moa999]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I suspect no airline will try to IDB pax already in seats ever again.

Instead.
Ladies and Gentlemen we have an additional (or maybe white lie technical) problem. Going to have to ask you all to get off the plane.

If Congress legislates for less overbooking fares will just increase.

Much like the UK decision for a baby to be paid the delayed flight payments in the UK, will just mean the charge for a no-seat infant increases to cover the risk of having to make payment

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Offloading should be the last 4 to check-in ...

No one needs to be offloaded. Once all the seats are occupied no one else can board. Crew or not.

The other way to solve the too many passengers issue is to do what PIA did recently this year - passengers not already seated will have to stand!.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39081476

 

[moa999]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Also saw an interview from US where pax claim that Munoz's initial statement was incorrect

And that a number of previous passengers picked by the lottery had refused to go before the Doctor, and no attempt to remove them was made.

The Chinese WeChat response is funny, doc was Vietnamese heritage.

 

[eastwest101]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Agree with others that this particular case is not an example of overbooking, UA made the commercial decision to remove 4 pax because they decided that they needed 4 seats for crew to fly another aircraft. I'm still not completely sure if the crew were "on duty" or on "company time" but I would assume so - this is how I undertand it is the sequence of events?

1. So when the flight commenced boarding UA were not in an overbooked situation

2. Before or During or after boarding (?) commenced UA ground agents found out that they had to get 4 paxing crew on board, I am presuming these crew don't constitute a 'booking' but are an operational mandate (a UA commercial decision)

3. Voluntary request for pax to stay behind and fly later on produced no volunteers - so presumably the compensation on offer from UA wasn't attractive enough to free up 4 seats (UA commercial decision)

4. A random selection proccess came up with 4 pax names to be "involuntary denied boarding", was boarding already commenced? What was the decision proccess used? Status? HLO? Truly random? (all UA operational decisions)

5. Three of the selected pax accepted the request and presumably were booked accom and a flight the next day with some sort of compensation from UA. (Still UA commercial and operational decision making)

6. The fourth pax refused requests to disembark, now we get to the interesting bit, does this request constitute a lawful direction from the UA agents/crew? At this point it dosen't seem that there is a public safety/weight & balance or any other typical reasons for this request other than being for the convenience and operational reasons of UA.

7. Its not entirely clear but it looks like the whole aircraft was disembarked of pax (possibly to trigger an involuntary denied boarding situation?)

8. Somehow the fourth pax got back on board with all the other pax (possibly using the same boarding pass) which must raise many questions about the security and competency of this embarkation proccess.

9. Presumably the UA ground or air crew now decide that this is a now situation of a passenger not obeying lawful crew instructions so call the police (this is where the lawyers will have a debate about what is a lawful instruction/direction from UA crew - if it ever goes to court and the instructions/directions are found not to be 'lawful' then whatever traspires next goes into other legal areas)

10. Chicago Police forcibly remove the passenger in question injuring him in the processs (is this now a safety or disobeying lawful direction to leave an aircraft situation?)

11. So the perception now is that an assault happened because of circumstances of a UA operational/commercial matter resulted in the passenger being forcibly removed to solve their commercial/operational/logistical problems and UA's incompetence

12. I will leave it up to others to debate the post action PR/Spin and publicity follow up....


Its just my opinion but the comments of this poster seem to summarize it quite elegantly:

This wasn’t a denied boarding. The passenger already boarded and was in a seat that he paid for. United’s Contract of Carriage dictates when a passenger can be refused transport, and nowhere does it state that United can de-board you because it wants to fly its own employees. I bet United will try to say that the passenger didn’t comply with crew member instructions, but that is bogus — why even have rules if a flight attendant can decide, without cause, to kick anyone off the plane? I can see this passenger’s mindset that he had to get home and did not violate the Contract of Carriage, so he shouldn’t have to get off.


This wasn’t a traditional overbooking situation. According to the information we have, the flight was not oversold — United wanted to get its employees to Louisville to staff another flight. While it was in United’s best business interest to get them there, passengers should not be held accountable for the airline’s lack of planning. Frankly, Chicago is a United hub, and if it really needed to get employees to Louisville, it could have flown an extra plane to get them there or rescheduled/use a charter/competitor etc etc

So UA seemed to have played the "safety" card first, which didn't work, it will be interesting if they play the "condition of contract/legalese" card or the self serving "operational reasons" cards next or if the UA PR people go straight to the back-pedalling sorry card next.

 

[mannej]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Offloading should be the last 4 to check-in ...

Who is to say that the Doctor wasn't one of those 4, and if they did choose the last 4, they weren't to react in a similar manner?

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

2. Before or During or after boarding (?) commenced UA ground agents found out that they had to get 4 paxing crew on board, I am presuming these crew don't constitute a 'booking' but are an operational mandate (a UA commercial decision)

3. Voluntary request for pax to stay behind and fly later on produced no volunteers - so presumably the compensation on offer from UA wasn't attractive enough to free up 4 seats (UA commercial decision)

4. A random selection proccess came up with 4 pax names to be "involuntary denied boarding", was boarding already commenced? What was the decision proccess used? Status? HLO? Truly random? (all UA operational decisions)

5. Three of the selected pax accepted the request and presumably were booked accom and a flight the next day with some sort of compensation from UA. (Still UA commercial and operational decision making)

6. The fourth pax refused requests to disembark, now we get to the interesting bit, does this request constitute a lawful direction from the UA agents/crew? At this point it dosen't seem that there is a public safety/weight & balance or any other typical reasons for this request other than being for the convenience and operational reasons of UA.

7. Its not entirely clear but it looks like the whole aircraft was disembarked of pax (possibly to trigger an involuntary boarding situation again?)

8. Somehow the fourth pax got back on board with all the other pax (possibly using the same boarding pass) which must raise many questions about the security and competency of this embarkation proccess.

9. Presumably the UA ground or air crew now decide that this is a now situation of a passenger not obeying lawful crew instructions so call the police (this is where the lawyers will have a debate about what is a lawful instruction/direction from UA crew - if it ever goes to court and the instructions/directions are found not to be 'lawful' then whatever traspires next goes into other legal areas)

10. Chicago Police forcibly remove the passenger in question injuring him in the processs (is this now a safety or disobeying lawful direction to leave an aircraft situation?)

11. So the perception now is that an assault happened because of circumstances of a UA operational/commercial matter resulted in the passenger being forcibly removed to solve their commercial/operational/logistical problems and UA's incompetence

11. I will leave it up to others to debate the post action PR/Spin and publicity follow up....

sequence was 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,8,10,7...

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Who is to say that the Doctor wasn't one of those 4, and if they did choose the last 4, they weren't to react in a similar manner?

Does not matter as the 4 pax removed to make way for 4 crew were already on board and seated.

Simply the 4 crew without seats should not have boarded if no one on board volunteered.
And if the airline needed those 4 seats a lot more $$$$ should have been offered. Maybe been Status upgrade.

No one should have been forcibly removed to make way for other who don't have a seat. It's as simple as that.