United Airlines Roughed Up Passenger to Give Up His Seat

[Hyperborea]

The passenger who refused to deplane created the problem.

United and their employees created the problem. The passenger who refused to deplane escalated the problem.

 

[ERD50]

This is being dragged up in order to justify the actions of UA and the airport police. While disturbing, it is not relevant.

What's relevant is this guy resisted an order to deplane.

So if he refuses, what do they do - just go to the next guy on the list? Is that 'fair'? So should the next guy be a "sucker" and leave, or just say "no" too? Obviously, that won't work - every passenger will say "Hey, you didn't make the other guy get off, so I won't either". And they are right back where they started from.

Probably better ways to handle this all around, but physically refusing to be escorted off by police wasn't the right thing to do either. He inconvenienced all the other passengers with this delay as well. What about their rights?

-ERD50

 

[RunningBum]

Because you pay the difference in the end, not United. Not everyone likes to be fleeced by people gaming the system. I'd bet that's what there is a $ max, four times the lowest fare isn't generous enough?

Who do you think is going to pay for the lawsuit or at least the defense that's going to result from this? When I've heard them ask for volunteers, I rarely see it go past the first offer or two, and I don't think I've ever seen $800.

 

[ERD50]

United and their employees created the problem. The passenger who refused to deplane escalated the problem.

No, United and their employees had a hand (as well as weather I think) in creating the situation (not the problem). And as I understand it, there is a documented procedure to deal with this situation. And it appears to have been followed (unless other info comes to light). And the last step in that procedure was some kind of drawing to pick passengers to deplane.

This passenger created the problem by refusing to follow the procedure. It was the same situation, and other passengers followed the procedure and deplaned without creating a problem.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

United and their employees created the problem. The passenger who refused to deplane escalated the problem.

No. No matter how much you try to spin it, there was no problem before the passenger refused to deplane. A couple had already deplaned as instructed and there was no problem.

 

[euro]

What's relevant is this guy resisted an order to deplane.

So if he refuses, what do they do - just go to the next guy on the list? Is that 'fair'? So should the next guy be a "sucker" and leave, or just say "no" too? Obviously, that won't work - every passenger will say "Hey, you didn't make the other guy get off, so I won't either". And they are right back where they started from.


-ERD50

I actually disagree somewhat. I think chances are decent that another passenger might have volunteered after all, had UA made another appeal after the passenger still adamantly refused to leave even with the cops there. A certain number of people will be willing to take one for the team, if the situation is escalated to the point where it is clear that everyone will suffer (because of the delays, etc). I bet there were those who were borderline tempted to take the 800 and might have come around.
Monday night quarterbacking, I realize....

 

[Ronstar]

I actually disagree somewhat. I think chances are decent that another passenger might have volunteered after all, had UA made another appeal after the passenger still adamantly refused to leave even with the cops there. A certain number of people will be willing to take one for the team, if the situation is escalated to the point where it is clear that everyone will suffer (because of the delays, etc). I bet there were those who were borderline tempted to take the 800 and might have come around.
Monday night quarterbacking, I realize....

I would have volunteered if I had seen the guy about to be ripped from his seat.

 

[bUU]

I actually disagree somewhat. I think chances are decent that another passenger might have volunteered after all, had UA made another appeal after the passenger still adamantly refused to leave even with the cops there.

That would still be the same "reward the violator" situation that ERD50 highlighted.

 

[neihn]

No. No matter how much you try to spin it, there was no problem before the passenger refused to deplane. A couple had already deplaned as instructed and there was no problem.

No. The problem was UA let everyone boarded the air craft then changed their mind last minutes.

 

[Hyperborea]

No. No matter how much you try to spin it, there was no problem before the passenger refused to deplane. A couple had already deplaned as instructed and there was no problem.

Most reasonable people would call a situation with a plane that has N seats and N passengers + 4 late employees demanding seats a problem. You can keep trying to spin that into a non-problem but it doesn't change the facts.

It doesn't mean that the doctor refusing to deplane didn't escalate the problem but he didn't cause it.

Edit: That most reasonable people will see it this way or in some way similar to this is the fact that is and will continue to cause the PR nightmare for UA.

 

[redduck]

... there is a documented procedure to deal with this situation. And it appears to have been followed (unless other info comes to light). And the last step in that procedure was some kind of drawing to pick passengers to deplane.
-ERD50

Maybe there is a documented procedure to deal with this situation. I doubt if it was followed unless it does say the use of excessive force is part of the procedure. And, if the training video shows an airport policeman dragging a passenger down the aisle of the plane as proper procedure, the cop should not have been suspended.

 

[Bestwifeever]

As others have pointed out, the regs set a $ maximum, and UA met it (I now know). Without the $ max, it wouldn't take long for passengers to realize if they hold out, they can get even more from the airlines (there'd be a free app to max comp within days), and we all pay more as a result. As usual, there was/is no easy answer.

There's blame to go around, the passenger, UA and aviation police - horrible situation.

I think that's the max the airlines must pay for an involuntary bumping--when they ask for volunteers, they can offer whatever they want.

I would be a terrible judge as I agree with most of what's been posted on either side when I read it here, and personally would have left the plane if I lost the lose my seat lottery. I still think UAL handled this really really poorly and the passenger will be paid off. Not a lot of sympathy in the Chicago media for the airline.

 

[bUU]

No. The problem was UA let everyone boarded the air craft then changed their mind last minutes.

You're mistaken. They didn't change their mind. The situation changed, and they responded appropriately to it. Again, there was no problem until the passenger refused to comply.

Most reasonable people would call a situation with a plane that has N seats and N passengers + 4 late employees demanding seats a problem.

Using the word "reasonable" and italicizing it doesn't make what you write after it reasonable. Airline travel is rife with stresses to the system, as a reflection of consumer bargain-hunting and investor expectations of profitability and growth.

Again, a couple of passengers complied with the order to deplane, no problem.

The CoCs and the CFR are real. Our unhappiness with what they provide for doesn't affect that.

I doubt if it was followed unless it does say the use of excessive force is part of the procedure.

You're confounding two different things. The airline did not use any force. Only the airport police did, as is their charge.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I would have volunteered if I had seen the guy about to be ripped from his seat.

Definitely.

 

[Meadbh]

You're mistaken. They didn't change their mind. The situation changed, and they responded appropriately to it. Again, there was no problem until the passenger refused to comply.

The passenger's noncompliance was just one link in a chain of poorly managed events.

Do you by any chance work for this airline?

 

[ERD50]

I actually disagree somewhat. I think chances are decent that another passenger might have volunteered after all, had UA made another appeal after the passenger still adamantly refused to leave even with the cops there. A certain number of people will be willing to take one for the team, if the situation is escalated to the point where it is clear that everyone will suffer (because of the delays, etc). I bet there were those who were borderline tempted to take the 800 and might have come around.
Monday night quarterbacking, I realize....

Possibly, but perhaps the FAA rules do not even allow for this kind of discretion? After all, it's really not fair to skip someone and pick another if there is a rule based system. They could end up with some sort of discrimination charge or something. Even if they volunteer, it is, as bUU mentioned, rewarding the guy for refusing.

It's no longer a procedure, it's a sucker's game.

-ERD50

 

[Hyperborea]

You're mistaken. They didn't change their mind. The situation changed, and they responded appropriately to it. Again, there was no problem until the passenger refused to comply.

That's self-ratifying nonsense. Just using the word "reasonable" and italicizing it doesn't make what you write after it reasonable. Airline travel is rife with stresses to the system, as a reflection of consumer bargain-hunting and investor expectations of profitability and growth.

Again, a couple of passengers complied with the order to deplane, no problem.

The CoCs and the CFR are real. Our unhappiness with what they provide for doesn't affect that.

Right, and calling a situation where you need to put N+4 people into a space for N people not a problem is the kind of thinking that has lead to the PR problem for UA. It's not a problem it's an opportunity!

 

[bUU]

Do you by any chance work for this airline?

No. I was simply not blinded by consumer bias which underlied the original twitter storm that launched this situation into widespread attention.

After all, it's really not fair to skip someone and pick another if there is a rule based system.

I believe the protocol is supposed to be lowest fare paid to highest fare paid, in that order.

Right, and calling a situation where you need to put N+4 people into a space for N people not a problem is the kind of thinking that has lead to the PR problem for UA. It's not a problem it's an opportunity!

It's reality. It happens. What would surely be a problem is blinding ourselves to what should happen in such cases (i.e., the passengers deplane and accept involuntary bumping compensation, and the flight crew boards so that they can service the flight they are scheduled to service).

 

[Midpack]

Who do you think is going to pay for the lawsuit or at least the defense that's going to result from this? When I've heard them ask for volunteers, I rarely see it go past the first offer or two, and I don't think I've ever seen $800.

If there's a suit/ settlement. And systematic fleecing can add up too, there were 46,000 people bumped in 2015.

 

[redduck]

...So if he refuses, what do they do - just go to the next guy on the list? Is that 'fair'? So should the next guy be a "sucker" and leave, or just say "no" too? Obviously, that won't work - every passenger will say "Hey, you didn't make the other guy get off, so I won't either".
-ERD50

"Every"?
ERD50, is that you?

 

[ERD50]

I would have volunteered if I had seen the guy about to be ripped from his seat.

Definitely.

That's not really 'volunteering' then. That's coercion by the guy creating the disturbance. Big difference in my book.

You would have had your chance to volunteer at the $800 or whatever.


-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

No. The problem was UA let everyone boarded the air craft then changed their mind last minutes.

I agree. There was a problem - United had to get four people to another airport and the only way to do that was to remove four paying customers from their seats after they had already boarded. That was United's problem.

Had they offered enough $$'s they could have fixed their problem at a relatively small expense as compared to what they are now up against. Their offer, what ever amount, was not enough to 'clear the market' as economists would say. So they needed to up the amount. Rather than do this they decided to pick four people to be removed. That might have been legal, buy it was a bad way to treat their customers regardless of how that one individual acted.

Like my old grand pappy used to say "Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy?" United may have been legally right. I can't imagine that the big boys and girls running the company are particularly happy about the results. "Gosh we saved xxx dollars in compensation fees. How wonderful. Now we will get a bigger bonus in 2017!!" I don't think so.

 

[Chuckanut]

You would have had your chance to volunteer at the $800 or whatever.


-ERD50

I think it is pretty clear that $800 (or whatever the deal was) was not enough to clear the market.

 

[Hermit]

No. I was simply not blinded by consumer bias which underlied the original twitter storm that launched this situation into widespread attention.

I believe the protocol is supposed to be lowest fare paid to highest fare paid, in that order.


It's reality. It happens. What would surely be a problem is blinding ourselves to what should happen in such cases (i.e., the passengers deplane and accept involuntary bumping compensation, and the flight crew boards so that they can service the flight they are scheduled to service).

Your defense of the airline to a level that IMO is unreasonable sure smell as if you have some skin in the game.

 

[Midpack]

I think that's the max the airlines must pay for an involuntary bumping--when they ask for volunteers, they can offer whatever they want.

I don't know if that's true or not, but let's say it is. Why would an airline offer more than $1350 if they can involuntarily take you off at that $ offer? They are running a business, stockholders expect them to minimize costs and avoid bad precedents. And for armchair quarterbacks, remember they do this all the time without incident, there's no way they could have known this passenger was going to refuse despite all appeals.