United Airlines Roughed Up Passenger to Give Up His Seat

[Midpack]

Here's UA Contract of Carriage https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Does it really say they can remove someone after boarding and occupying their assigned seat, to make space for someone else? It is long and I didn't read the entire agreement, but looking at the applicable sections, this is not so clear cut.

Rule 21, "Refusal to Transport" does not include overbooking or needing a seat for someone else, Rule 5 "Cancellation of Reservations" seems to cover travelers before they board, and United's "reseating" rights mean the traveler gets another seat. Finally, the entire section on denied boarding (rule 25) all describe a situation where the traveler has not yet boarded the aircraft.

It seems that once a passenger has boarded, the airline can move him or her, but as long as they are complying with the contract and federal regulations, it is not clearly spelled out that they can be involuntarily removed from the aircraft. Of course, I am not a lawyer, draw no conclusions from media reports, and offer no judgement on this situation.

"Involuntary bumping" is part of the US DOT regs which presumably overrides an individual carriers rules? If you offer compensation and passengers still don't comply voluntarily, evidently the police get involved. Reports say two officers tried to convince the passenger, and when that failed, a third removed him forcibly. I read another report this morning (I've read more than I wanted already) that 46,000 people were bumped, voluntarily or involuntarily, in 2015 - without incident judging by the lack of reports.

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

One of the aviation police was 'placed on leave' as a result of the incident.

Again a very unfortunate event, that could have been handled better on all sides, but UA was between a rock and a hard place. I am sure they'll develop other options for the future as a result of yesterday's fiasco.

 

[bUU]

14 CFR 250 is the prevailing law.

 

[ivinsfan]

Here's UA Contract of Carriage https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Does it really say they can remove someone after boarding and occupying their assigned seat, to make space for someone else? It is long and I didn't read the entire agreement, but looking at the applicable sections, this is not so clear cut.

Rule 21, "Refusal to Transport" does not include overbooking or needing a seat for someone else, Rule 5 "Cancellation of Reservations" seems to cover travelers before they board, and United's "reseating" rights mean the traveler gets another seat. Finally, the entire section on denied boarding (rule 25) all describe a situation where the traveler has not yet boarded the aircraft.

It seems that once a passenger has boarded, the airline can move him or her, but as long as they are complying with the contract and federal regulations, it is not clearly spelled out that they can be involuntarily removed from the aircraft. Of course, I am not a lawyer, draw no conclusions from media reports, and offer no judgement on this situation.

Well I think boarding is "process" and being in your seat is just part of the process. What about weight and balance issues? I've seen people leaving the plane for something like that, sometimes they have to leave because the airline has loaded too much freight, but yet, they don't remove the freight they remove people. Most times people are willing to leave for money and extra goodies so it doesn't turn into a problem. Airline don't like IDB because it's a black mark against them with the FFA.

But I do think that passengers are feeling more and more marginalized on mainline and budget carriers and stuff like this will be happening more often.

 

[MRG]

Years ago I was traveling and picked up a "Harvard Business Journal". Interesting article about how companies handled big, negative, PR issues.

The authors gave kudos for the J&J Tylenol poisoning event many years ago, as the proper way to accept responsibility and go forward.

There was a recent (to the time of the article) email that Neal Patterson sent out to his Cerner organization. They ripped Neal as an example of how not to handle a situation.

I am wondering what they might say about how UA is handling this event.

 

[Midpack]

14 CFR 250 is the prevailing law.

And I am sure you recognize exactly where the applicable section could be challenged in court. As others have said, we may see whole planes forced to deplane next time this happens, to better fit the existing reg - and/or the reg will be changed. UA had no way to know in advance that they wouldn't get enough volunteers since that usually works fine, so as a courtesy they boarded everyone. No good deed goes unpunished...

I am sympathetic to the passenger, UA and aviation police.

 

[bUU]

That's just it; when it gets challenged in court, or when the idea of changing the law in Congress is raised, people's perspectives when they are not personally the customer often prevail. It's easy to take the consumer's perspective when you have no skin in the game, such as on Facebook or Twitter, but what matters is what perspective governs your vital actions in society.

 

[Meadbh]

For the record, Dr. Dao has an active medical licence in Kentucky.

Kentucky: GenSearch

 

[dixonge]

Funny how people see things totally opposite.
I see it as he "pushed the button" by violating federal law.

One man's 'violating federal law' is another man's 'sticking up for my rights' or perhaps a form of protest. You're right, it's kinda funny. Kinda...

 

[samclem]

Just an FYI, there could be a good reasons he has his lawyer's number. According to an unnamed source,


Man claiming to be doctor bloodied, dragged off United Airlines - NY Daily News

Oh, and is their anything about a doctor with that name in the area he was going to? Why yes, here's an article that *may* shed some light on his familiarity with his lawyer:


Elizabethtown Doctor Indicted On 98 Drug Charges - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports

.

United's lawyers are rejoicing. Maybe the "doctor" will be eager to put this behind him, too. And maybe we have an explanation for his behavior.

 

[Chuckanut]

From what I understand there are two issues here: Denied Boarding and Refusal to Transport.

The are, legally speaking, two different things.

The man had already boarded the plane. Thus that part is over and done. United seems to have refused to transport him. From what I have read, United's refusal to transport him may not have fallen within the law.

Based upon what I have read to date (which may be wrong or incomplete) it seems to me that United goofed in regards to getting their crew to where they needed to be. That is the root of the problem. When the cash payment offered did not get the required volunteers, United tried to fix their problem by making it the passenger's problem (the passenger gets booted off the flight). That was wrong. They should have upped the bounty for volunteering to get off the plane. At some point they would have had the four volunteers they needed but it might have cost them a few thousand dollars more. Instead they tried to shift the problem to the passengers and that was their big mistake.

I am going to guess that if they had offered the passengers say $2000 to get off the plane they would have probably had to draw lots to choose from the multitude of volunteers.

Perhaps the passenger was overly belligerent, or behaved badly. I don't know for certain. But, even so, United could have handled the situation much better by simply offering more money to the volunteers. After all it was their problem caused by how they run their airline.

Or the passenger could have simply got off the plane and then sued United for all sorts of money because they broke the law by refusing to transport him.

I think the couple who did get off the plane when asked to do so, might be wise to talk to a lawyer.

 

[Midpack]

Based upon what I have read to date (which may be wrong or incomplete) it seems to me that United goofed in regards to getting their crew to where they needed to be. That is the root of the problem. When the cash payment offered did not get the required volunteers, United tryed to fix their problem by making it the passenger's problem (the passenger gets booted off the flight). That was wrong. They should have upped the bounty for volunteering to get off the plane. At some point they would have had the four volunteers they needed but it might have cost them a few thousand dollars more. Instead they tried to shift the problem to the passengers and that was their big mistake.

I am going to guess that if they had offered the passengers say $2000 to get off the plane they would have probably had to draw lots to choose from the multitude of volunteers.

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.

A new video of the passenger who was forcibly removed from his seat and dragged through the aisle of an overbooked United Airlines aircraft shows the man repeatedly saying “just kill me” as blood drips from his mouth.

“Just kill me, just kill me,” the man said in a video posted on Twitter by Kaylyn Davis, who says her husband was on the overbooked flight on Sunday evening. Another video taken by her husband shows the man repeating, “I have to go home.”

 

[Chuckanut]

As others have pointed out, the regs set a maximum. 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 a week), and we all pay more as a result. As usual, there was/is no easy answer.

So what if passengers hold out for more? There is a risk doing that. Maybe I think I can hold out for $2000 but the guy in front of me will settle for $1400, so I end up with nothing. That is the free market.

 

[Midpack]

So what if passengers hold out for more? There is a risk doing that. Maybe I think I can hold out for $2000 but the guy in front of me will settle for $1400, so I end up with nothing. That is the free market.

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?

 

[bUU]

One man's 'violating federal law' is another man's 'sticking up for my rights' or perhaps a form of protest.

Why must it be one or the other? Protests of any significant consequence almost always require violating the law. Honorable protesting involves responsibly acknowledging and accepting this fact and accepting the consequences of the decision to transgress. The willingness to protest is itself noble because it is a sacrifice. Gandhi went to jail, peacefully. He didn't claim exemption from the consequences of his actions. He didn't demonize those who took him into custody nor the guards who kept him in custody. He invited the consequences he incurred because he felt it would give him an opportunity to draw attention to what he felt was injustice.

This passenger wasn't standing on principle. He just didn't want to be personally inconvenienced and felt that he didn't need to comply with the rules that other passengers had already complied with.

From what I understand there are two issues here: Denied Boarding and Refusal to Transport.

True, but I think Refusal to Transport was irrelevant up until the point in time that the passenger refused to comply with the denied boarding. That's when the passenger became a safety concern.

The man had already boarded the plane. Thus that part is over and done.

Not true. Very often on smaller planes passengers are denied boarding even after they're seated because of weight balancing considerations. In other circumstances, such as mechanical failures, passengers are deplaned en masse, followed by reboarding, perhaps on a different aircraft with fewer seats, resulting in some passengers being denied boarding.

 

[redduck]

I don't think the fact that this guy is a doctor is relevant. Maybe it makes the story more interesting, but not relevant. But, I did see the videos. I can't believe the airport cop (the one wearing blue jeans) performed the extraction as he was taught. Was it close to being text-book perfect? I imagine that United could have gotten any (other) thug off the street to do the job just as well as the airport cop did.

I also think that United got lucky because if the woman in the video who kept screaming "Oh, my God!" had stood up in the aisle to impede the extraction and was touched by the airport cop there would have been a riot on the plane.

 

[growing_older]

Maybe it was misreported on CBS News (national) last night, but they reported the passenger was offered $800 and the "standard" was $1350.

There have been a lot of conflicting reports about the compensation offered. The value of $800 has been widely reported, but it has also been claimed it was in vouchers that are difficult to use and have expiration dates. Some passengers on the plane have reported that they offered to deplane for $1500 and were rebuffed.

There's also a story today about a woman flying Delta during the recent weather problems who gave up seats three days running and received $11,000 so different airlines apparently approach this problem differently.

 

[bUU]

I don't think the fact that this guy is a doctor is relevant. Maybe it makes the story more interesting, but not relevant.

It was my first hint that the Twitterstorm was a deliberate effort to manipulate mob mentality.

 

[ivinsfan]

I'm not going to post a link, but if anyone wants to go to the DailyMail online, there is a lengthy story about the passenger on the front page. Lots of details about his personal and professional problems. Now his privacy, as well as his family's is gone. What a complete mess.

 

[Midpack]

There have been a lot of conflicting reports about the compensation offered. The value of $800 has been widely reported, but it has also been claimed it was in vouchers that are difficult to use and have expiration dates. Some passengers on the plane have reported that they offered to deplane for $1500 and were rebuffed.

Airline vouchers have always been difficult to use, lots of restrictions. Link?

There's also a story today about a woman flying Delta during the recent weather problems who gave up seats three days running and received $11,000 so different airlines apparently approach this problem differently.

Are you implying they can offer whatever they want? None over the $1350 limit even though the passengers tried to up the ante, three passengers over three days during a paralyzing blizzard plus token lunches and taxi fare. All within the regs and entirely in gift cards. http://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/flight-volunteering-compensation

It's interesting and sad how folks try to deliberately and falsely gin up these stories...

 

[bUU]

The Delta compensation was for a family being bumped, not the woman alone, and that the compensation was for three separate bumpings not just one, and the flight in question was an international flight from Atlanta to Dublin, not a Chicago to Louisville shuttle. So if the report is to be believed as reported, then it is still just $11000/9 = $1222.22 in compensation for a single bumping, for flights that costs far more than the United flight we're discussing.

 

[neihn]

Unless the offer is cash - who would want to fly with the air line that booted you off the plan again?

Seriously, no United for me no matter how friendly skies they are.

 

[audreyh1]

There have been a lot of conflicting reports about the compensation offered. The value of $800 has been widely reported, but it has also been claimed it was in vouchers that are difficult to use and have expiration dates. Some passengers on the plane have reported that they offered to deplane for $1500 and were rebuffed.

There's also a story today about a woman flying Delta during the recent weather problems who gave up seats three days running and received $11,000 so different airlines apparently approach this problem differently.

There is a big difference between the vouchers they offer you to volunteer, and the cash compensation they owe you for involuntary removal (i.e. being told to get off) from the plane. $800 in vouchers is a far cry from $1350 in cash, or even $800 in cash. I hope the couple that left when told to knew to demand the cash compensation.

 

[Meadbh]

I'm not going to post a link, but if anyone wants to go to the DailyMail online, there is a lengthy story about the passenger on the front page. Lots of details about his personal and professional problems. Now his privacy, as well as his family's is gone. What a complete mess.

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

 

[bUU]

This is being dragged up in order to justify the actions of UA and the airport police.

Actually, I believe it was dragged up to try to explain the passenger's irrational actions, i.e., why he was so belligerent in his refusal to comply.

 

[ivinsfan]

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

I don't know if dragged up is the right word. It's a given with today's social media that if you are involved in something like this you have no privacy ..that seems wrong. It's the media reporting this not the airlines they just want headlines and are not sticking up for United.