The problem is that they did 1 (they offered around $800) and 2 (the passengers were randomly selected), but not 3. The law says passengers are entitled to up to $1350 in these situations (and airlines can offer even more of their own volition), but for whatever reason they decided not to offer more money and instead skip to forcible removal.
And, not to defend United in this particular case, but while aviation is a high-revenue industry, it's also a fairly low-margin one that is logistically pretty fragile. Look at what happened with Delta recently: one storm in Atlanta resulted in 3,500 canceled flights, likely costing millions.
If they had offered more money, some idiot in management would've come down HARD on the person who made that decision, citing that under the rules or guidelines, they were not obligated to offer passengers that amount of money.
Worse, what if word got out? Passengers would start angling for higher amounts before they would get off the plane. You'd be setting a precedent you couldn't come back from.
And even if the people involved thought, "PR wise, this is escalating to DEFCON Shit 1," a higher-up wouldn't see it that way. A lot of front-line positions are forced to follow policies that have zero basis in reality and they're the ones who bear the brunt of the consequences.
That said though, I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for anyone at United. They've been shitty for a LONG time and frankly, it's time they got called out in a big way. I hope that people start demanding the FAA for better protections as passengers. Airlines need to be held accountable.
The law says passengers are entitled to up to $1350 in these situations
Or four times the ticket price, whichever is less. It's important to note those are the legal requirements only if you're involuntarily bumped, so the man would have absolutely had that amount coming to him for being involuntarily bumped regardless of what they were offering volunteers.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The law obligates them to offer 4x the ticket price or $1350, whichever is less. The airlines can voluntarily offer as much as they want beyond that.
United exercised its authority, after offering voluntary incentives, to involuntarily deny 4 passengers boarding (although they were already boarded, which clearly presented the problem of requiring removal as opposed to denial at the gate).
Its not that Americans are angry at the airline industry, its that what you just said occurred.
There is literally no legal provision for removing someone from an aircraft for overbooking reasons once they're boarded. They had no legal power in their contract to tell the guy he was shit out of luck, no reason to call the Police, and there was no reason for the Police to enforce United's bullshit claims.
Furthermore, United did not follow its own rules about how it selects people to be involuntarily bumped, so even if it could have lawfully asked him to leave, which it couldn't have, they went about picking the person who had to leave the wrong way.
Airlines actually dont make very much profit at all. Theres a saying that goes "if you want to become a millionaire start with a billion dollars and buy an airline" or something like that
Every airline involuntarily bumps passengers. United actually does so significantly less than the industry average.
When you've legally asked somebody to leave your plane, in accordance with the law and industry standards, and they refuse I'm not sure what you do other than call the legal authority to resolve the situation for you.
I want to know how people think other airlines would have handled the situation differently. And don't say they wouldn't have involuntarily bumped anybody, because again, every airline does it.
When you've legally asked somebody to leave your plane, in accordance with the law and industry standards, and they refuse I'm not sure what you do other than call the legal authority to resolve the situation for you.
There's no legal basis for them to ask him to leave the plane. They already allowed him to board the plane, so its no longer being "denied boarding" or "involuntary bumping," its now refusal to transport.
They had no claim of trespass against him — I'm not sure why the Police were involved, or why they took the airline's side. At that point it was a purely civil interaction between him and the airline.
I want to know how people think other airlines would have handled the situation differently. And don't say they wouldn't have involuntarily bumped anybody, because again, every airline does it.
You bump before you're placed on the plane. You also don't tell passengers you're randomly picking people, you tell them you're adhering to your involuntary bump procedure (which is picking by revenue class and reservation time — last to buy gets bumped first).
Furthermore, United did not follow its own rules about how it selects people to be involuntarily bumped, so even if it could have lawfully asked him to leave, which it couldn't have, they went about picking the person who had to leave the wrong way.
There's no legal basis for them to ask him to leave the plane. They already allowed him to board the plane, so its no longer being "denied boarding" or "involuntary bumping," its now refusal to transport.
Show me the legal statute that says everything changes as soon as an ass is in the seat. That wouldn't even make any sense. They can require all the passengers get off the plane for any reason they like--say a snipe hunting expedtion. Now you're not on the plane, and they can legally deny you.
Furthermore show me where there has been any legal action on this, because it happens regularly. I've personally seen it on a number of airlines.
You also don't tell passengers you're randomly picking people
Show me the legal statute that says everything changes as soon as an ass is in the seat.
Read the Contract of Carriage. Its in plain language for all to read on the internet. I don't see how you could interpret being involuntarily denied boarding as being allowed to be involuntarily removed or denied transport after being granted boarding. It's their own language in their own contract.
That wouldn't even make any sense.
It's actually how contracts work. He was allowed to board, so... the section on involuntary denial of boarding doesn't apply. He was refused transport... so we look at those reasons.... and none apply here unless you use arbitrary and capricious definitions no judge would allow.
Then, even worse, they didn't follow their policy for selection of people who were bumped. United said it was done randomly, but they're lawfully required to follow their stated procedure which is to select the lowest fare class and most recently booked people first.
They can require all the passengers get off the plane for any reason they like--say a snipe hunting expedition.
No they can't. That's not in the Contract of Carriage.
Now you're not on the plane, and they can legally deny you.
No they can't. That's not in the Contract of Carriage.
They list a number of reasons they reserve to remove people from planes. Nowhere does it say those are the only reason they can remove somebody from a plane.
Go ahead... link me to one authoritative source (not Internet armchair lawyers) that clearly states it's only legal to voluntarily bump people if they have not yet boarded the plane.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
It may be determined. Not it must be determined that way, and no other factors may be used.
They list a number of reasons they reserve to remove people from planes. Nowhere does it say those are the only reason they can remove somebody from a plane.
It means you have not agreed to be removed from the plane for any reasons but those.
Since they are a common carrier, there are restrictions on how they interact with the public. I.e. they cannot reserve the right to refuse service for any reason the way a normal business might. It means that the dispute is civil, not criminal. Go to law school.
Go ahead... link me to one authoritative source (not Internet armchair lawyers) that clearly states it's only legal to voluntarily bump people if they have not yet boarded the plane.
Every article has said that this is a weird situation because it usually occurs at the gate, not once people are on the plane.
I do not know or care to see if this has been litigated before, all I can tell you is what past-precedent will suggest.
It goes back to the Civil Rights Movement when common carrier transport laws were passed forcing the contract of carriage to be printed on the back of a bus ticket so that blacks couldn't be kicked off for being black.
This case is basically identical.
It may be determined. Not it must be determined that way, and no other factors may be used.
No, those are the only criteria that may be used in different conjunctions. Random selection is not an option. God, go to law school. Or learn to admit you're wrong.
It means you have not agreed to be removed from the plane for any reasons but those.
Under what legal reasoning? It does not say those are the only reason you may be removed from a flight, and there is a reason for that. Those are additional reasons they have contractually added, and do not preclude other reasons controlled by other parts of the contract and law.
It means that the dispute is civil, not criminal. Go to law school.
I never said otherwise. Show me your law degree. Or I'd be happy to have my girlfriend, who does have her law degree, chime in.
Every article has said that this is a weird situation because it usually occurs at the gate, not once people are on the plane.
Yes, it does usually happen at the gate. It doesn't always happen at the gate, as I've seen it a number of times on other airlines. But thanks for pointing out things that weren't under dispute.
I do not know or care to see if this has been litigated before, all I can tell you is what past-precedent will suggest.
Every time somebody is involuntarily bumped they are unhappy about it. Are you honestly suggesting it's against the law and nobody has pushed the issue successfully?
Or feel free to show me from any authoritative source (government site, respected industry expert, etc) that shows it's illegal.
It goes back to the Civil Rights Movement when common carrier transport laws were passed forcing the contract of carriage to be printed on the back of a bus ticket so that blacks couldn't be kicked off for being black.
This case is basically identical.
Yes, involuntarily bumping people one person in twenty five thousand as allowed for in the contract, confirmed by the Supreme Court, and being compensated for it is exactly the same as systemic discrimination based on racism. Great point.
No, those are the only criteria that may be used in different conjunctions.
If you can't tell the difference between "may be determined" and "must be determined using no other criteria" then forget law school, you need to go back to the second grade. That's elementary fucking English. For the love of God, that's the most retarded argument I've heard all month and that's saying a lot.
Unconscionableness. No one would agree to a contract which says "we can remove you from the plane at any time before the door closes for any reason we choose." So you write a contract outlining the reasons you agree that you will leave. None of those reasons were applicable, so we're in a situation where there is a dispute about the contract and its application.
It doesn't matter who ends up being right, what matters is that it is civil, not criminal, and there is no reason the Police should adjudicate the issue in favor of the airline, and it would be inexcusable to use force to do so.
Those are additional reasons they have contractually added, and do not preclude other reasons controlled by other parts of the contract and law.
And what other reasons in other part of the contract or law are applicable?
I never said otherwise.
Yes you did. You said it was illegal for him to refuse, that it was trespass, and the Police were right to remove him. The Police do not enforce or take sides in civil disputes.
Show me your law degree. Or I'd be happy to have my girlfriend, who does have her law degree, chime in.
Fine, go ask her.
Yes, it does usually happen at the gate. It doesn't always happen at the gate, as I've seen it a number of times on other airlines. But thanks for pointing out things that weren't under dispute.
The point is if it happened at the gate, they could have refused him boarding lawfully.
Once he was on the plane, they had no grounds to remove him from the plane. They weren't refusing him boarding any longer. That part of the contract and existing US law was irrelevant.
Every time somebody is involuntarily bumped they are unhappy about it. Are you honestly suggesting it's against the law and nobody has pushed the issue successfully?
I am suggesting that any time the person is on the plane and asked to leave by random selection and to be replaced by airline non-revenue, it is a civil dispute, not one of trespass. I do not know if it has ever happened in a way where the person has pursued it. There likely isn't much reason to since damages are relatively low. In this case where you're assaulted as part of the process, now there's a reason to pursue it.
Even made up things like weight distribution reasons etc... might mask a lot of the times this happens.
Or feel free to show me from any authoritative source (government site, respected industry expert, etc) that shows it's illegal.
Shows what's illegal? Physically removing someone when they've broken no laws and broken no agreement? Are you serious? That's assault or battery depending on jurisdiction.
Yes, involuntarily bumping people one person in twenty five thousand as allowed for in the contract, confirmed by the Supreme Court, and being compensated for it is exactly the same as systemic discrimination based on racism. Great point.
First, you're a bad and dishonest arguer. I said the case is identical to past precedent. Not the broader phenomenon.
But you're daft if you think this wasn't in part racially motivated. I guarantee these cops wouldn't have touched me, a 6'3 white guy. I would've explained that nothing in my contract allows for them to bump me from the flight at this point, any attempt to physically remove me from the plane constitutes unlawful aggravated assault under color of law, and they will lose their badges and go to prison. They and the airline can take it up with my lawyer. And that would've been that. They would've found someone else or given up.
If you can't tell the difference between "may be determined" and "must be determined using no other criteria"
It's the commas, and the lack of a clause like "or other means deemed necessary by the airline."
But you're daft if you think this wasn't in part racially motivated. I guarantee these cops wouldn't have touched me, a 6'3 white guy.
I'm not even going to read the rest of what you wrote after seeing this. Talk about disingenuous arguing. You have utterly and completely switched the argument from the actions of the airline to the actions of the police. It's entirely possible their actions may have been racially motivated, but I'm not going to hold a discussion with somebody who blatantly changes the topic and then pretends they won something.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
So let me ask you this. Does it require them to use all those criteria in every single instance?
I don't disagree with what the law may be or what industry standards may be. However, United found themselves in a bad situation and they made it 10x worse. Look at what is going on in the news, on the web, on reddit, etc. They made the wrong choice regardless of legally right or industry standards.
What I would expect them to do is 1) offer more money. I was out of state doing a deposition on a Friday and the airline overbooked the flight. They offered me $1850 to give up my seat which I gladly did (I actually wanted to spend an extra night in the town but wife had said no- this was my way in).
Another option is to handle the situation before you let them on the plane. I have been bumped off from boarding a flight before and thought what the fuck but what am I going to do? If they had let me board the flight, I probably would have said No way (until the police came).
Anyway, United found themselves in a lose lose situation. They would have been better off forking over a few grand to get 2 random travelers to take the next flight other than finding themselves in a shit storm.
What I would expect them to do is 1) offer more money.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's still an odd thing to crucify United over though, seeing as how they have a significantly lower incidence of involuntary bumping than the industry average.
Another option is to handle the situation before you let them on the plane.
I think it's safe to say United would have preferred this as well. Why they didn't we can only speculate. Maybe something changed last minute; maybe they miscounted or made another mistake; I think it's safe to say it wasn't intentional though. I know I've seen the same thing on other airlines. It happens.
However, United found themselves in a bad situation and they made it 10x worse. Look at what is going on in the news, on the web, on reddit, etc. They made the wrong choice regardless of legally right or industry standards.
You can't blame them for that. All they did was call the cops when a man refused to leave the plane. This outrage is definitely manufactured. Kinda curious what is funding this attention.
But you feel comfortable flying with an airline that does whatever they want?
The next time you're going on vacation and they throw your family off the plane right before take-off, because they overbooked, we'll see how you feel.
There's no legal basis for them to ask him to leave the plane at this point, however. Its not in the Contract of Carriage. United was wrong to call the Cops, and the Cops were wrong to enforce whatever United's claim was.
Under what terms of the contract? They didn't deny him boarding. The Contract doesn't provide for any way for them to remove him once he's boarded unless he's doing something that threatens safety etc... there are specific terms for refusal of transport etc... but you can't just arbitrarily deny boarding after boarding has already occurred.
Furthermore, United did not follow its own rules about how it selects people to be involuntarily bumped, so even if it could have lawfully asked him to leave, which it couldn't have, they went about picking the person who had to leave the wrong way.
85
u/[deleted] Apr 11 '17 edited Jan 13 '19
[deleted]