Fly United or Else!

[Gorgon]

Lawyer youtube guy says there is no rule covering the forceful removal of an overbooked passenger, just removal due to 'unruly behavior'. Point being once you are on the plane it's too late to envoke overbooking. That happens at the gate. Who knows maybe that was intended to avoid just this kind of situation.

[Gorgon]

Ohh maybe the link too

 

[Guard Dog]

As a PR problem they could not be doing a worse job of this. Airlines have handeled plane crashes better than this. It would have made more sense to sweeten the pot if no one jumped at thr $800 and free hotel stay.

 

But anyway this flight was from Louisville to Chicago right? Isn't that like a four hour drive tops? Nuts to flying such a short distance. If I'm going through all the aggravation of a flight I want to be in a different country when I get off the plane.

[Orogun01]

As a PR problem they could not be doing a worse job of this. Airlines have handeled plane crashes better than this. It would have made more sense to sweeten the pot if no one jumped at thr $800 and free hotel stay.

 

But anyway this flight was from Louisville to Chicago right? Isn't that like a four hour drive tops? Nuts to flying such a short distance. If I'm going through all the aggravation of a flight I want to be in a different country when I get off the plane.

Maybe they need the frequent flyer miles? At any rate I hope that both the Airline and the police enforcement(if that's who forcibly removed the man) both get sued.

[Gromnir]

Lawyer youtube guy says there is no rule covering the forceful removal of an overbooked passenger, just removal due to 'unruly behavior'. Point being once you are on the plane it's too late to envoke overbooking. That happens at the gate. Who knows maybe that was intended to avoid just this kind of situation.

we would caution 'gainst hiring this guy. am no more an expert on the subject matter than is he, but even we recognize what a shallow reading he gave the contract of carriage.  boarding, for example, is a term o' art which seems to have a meaning divorced from simple english. likewise, federal laws is very much a factor when deciding when/how a passenger may be removed from a plane.

 

the internet is a dangerous place.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

Not as dangerous as a plane obviously. Obsidian can ban us from psoting but they cna't physically jumpo us, beat the crap out of us, and then throw us out AFTER we pay them to be post here. LMAO  Funny that. ;D Yet you defend that behaviour.

 

The airline knows theys crewed up and are begging for mercy. EPIC FAIL.

[Gorgon]

psoting is indeed explicitly forbidden.

[Gorgon]

 

Lawyer youtube guy says there is no rule covering the forceful removal of an overbooked passenger, just removal due to 'unruly behavior'. Point being once you are on the plane it's too late to envoke overbooking. That happens at the gate. Who knows maybe that was intended to avoid just this kind of situation.

we would caution 'gainst hiring this guy. am no more an expert on the subject matter than is he, but even we recognize what a shallow reading he gave the contract of carriage.  boarding, for example, is a term o' art which seems to have a meaning divorced from simple english. likewise, federal laws is very much a factor when deciding when/how a passenger may be removed from a plane.

 

the internet is a dangerous place.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah but this is overbooking, that's covered by the customer-airline contract. The captain can deny anyone for the slimmest safety reason, the cops can have all kinds of cause, but again, this is explicitly a case of overbooking. 

 

Once you are on the plane you have boarded. I seriously doubt there is any legalese that would offer a different definition. 

[Gromnir]

Yeah but this is overbooking, that's covered by the customer-airline contract. The captain can deny anyone for the slimmest safety reason, the cops can have all kinds of cause, but again, this is explicitly a case of overbooking. 

 

 

 

Once you are on the plane you have boarded. I seriously doubt there is any legalese that would offer a different definition. 

 

actually, there is. an ordinary english speaker would likely believe a passenger has boarded an airline when they physical step onto the plane.  is at least one aviation attorney we spoke to who told us boarding is a process, and a passenger is not considered to have actual boarded until the plane leaves the terminal. law is replete with definitions which do not adhere to simple english meanings.  most lawyers we know is gonna be very careful 'bout identifying actual meanings o' overbooked and boarded and whatnot.  

 

the problem with unique definitions and simple english readings is a frequent hurdle for Gromnir when attempting to explain Constitutional law to lay folks.  folks read their pocket Constitution and become more confused when Gromnir explains what case law has interpreted the Constitution to actual be meaning. "but the tenth amendment says..."  

 

*shrug*

 

typical, ambiguities in a contract is decided 'gainst the person who wrote the language in the contract, but is not always the case, and again, for airline travel you got custom and fed law to deal with.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

psoting is indeed explicitly forbidden.

Ha, sarcasm is a lost art nowadays. Good show sir and I do like your new avatar, that show is magnificent.

[Heijoushin]

Wow, I don’t usually comment on these internet rage stories, but this one is a doozy. Maybe I sympathize because I travel overseas a lot.

 

I’m no legal expert, so couldn’t tell you the nitty-gritty of boarding etc. (Gromnir seems to be doing fine playing Devils advocate over there so I’ll leave him to it) but in terms of common sense / what a rational guy on the street would do, there was a major screw-up here. I don’t know if the whole airline deserves to go down, but whoever was in charge of that fiasco should be fired.

 

As I understand, after no one took their 800$ offer (whether you think this is a good offer or not is debatable) they randomly selected someone to kick off the plane. What is this, the Hunger Games? Who thought that was a good idea? Couldn’t the employees just drive down to their next destination (it was a domestic flight, yes?) instead of holding up the entire flight? Maybe the security guys were just doing their job, but what genius pointed them at the guy and said “Remove that man by whatever means necessary! We need his seat!” Ever heard of... the customer comes first?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Heijoushin

[redneckdevil]

[Gorgon]

 

Yeah but this is overbooking, that's covered by the customer-airline contract. The captain can deny anyone for the slimmest safety reason, the cops can have all kinds of cause, but again, this is explicitly a case of overbooking. 

 

 

 

Once you are on the plane you have boarded. I seriously doubt there is any legalese that would offer a different definition. 

 

actually, there is. an ordinary english speaker would likely believe a passenger has boarded an airline when they physical step onto the plane.  is at least one aviation attorney we spoke to who told us boarding is a process, and a passenger is not considered to have actual boarded until the plane leaves the terminal. law is replete with definitions which do not adhere to simple english meanings.  most lawyers we know is gonna be very careful 'bout identifying actual meanings o' overbooked and boarded and whatnot.  

 

the problem with unique definitions and simple english readings is a frequent hurdle for Gromnir when attempting to explain Constitutional law to lay folks.  folks read their pocket Constitution and become more confused when Gromnir explains what case law has interpreted the Constitution to actual be meaning. "but the tenth amendment says..."  

 

*shrug*

 

typical, ambiguities in a contract is decided 'gainst the person who wrote the language in the contract, but is not always the case, and again, for airline travel you got custom and fed law to deal with.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well a document like that should be parsable by the general public, so reasonably there should be definitions whenever ambiguity is an issue. Maybe there are, it's not like I read it. I sometimes wonder if legalese obscurity is a cunning plan to make sure no one but lawyers understand it so they will always be needed for translation. 

[Amentep]

First of all why do you guys keep repeating it was a case of overbooking? It wasn't.

I believe it's being referred to as an overbooking issue because United followed their overbooking guidelines of first offering an incentive to passengers to take a different flight followed by random selection.

 

Arguably, if your doing logistics right, you would have reserved the seats for flight crews to be moved around, so that they booked those seats could be seen as overbooking, hence the use of the rule.

 

Not an expert though.

 

Second, what I don't understand in this story is why bother with throwing out this guy in particular? They asked 3 people and they complied, one guy didn't. Why waste the time and reputation over such petty issue? They had dozens of people to chose from. They could just ask another person and they would found a compliant "Gromnir-like" peon in half the time required to throw this person.

If one person is allowed to refuse, then they all would be. You then have less of a leg to stand on when you get to the last passenger after all others refuse to be removed, he refuses, and you remove him anyway because your applying your own rule arbitrarily.

[Guard Dog]

I wonder... did the randomly selected still get the $800 and free hotel stay?

 

I know the doctor didn't. But I expect he'll come out of this with a lot more than $800 once all the lawsuits are settled.

[Rosbjerg]

I don't understand American consumer practice at all, you guys let both law enforcment, government and cooperations get away with so much crazy ****. I can't even imagine the public outrage if something like that happened so openly in Europe.

 

Which is not to say stuff like that never happens here. I've just noticed it's always a little more extreme when it's in the states.

[Guard Dog]

I don't understand American consumer practice at all, you guys let both law enforcment, government and cooperations get away with so much crazy ****. I can't even imagine the public outrage if something like that happened so openly in Europe.

 

Which is not to say stuff like that never happens here. I've just noticed it's always a little more extreme when it's in the states.

Maybe it just gets more coverage here.

[Tigranes]

You live in America, GD, so I don't think you'd be able to tell if American stuff got more coverage abroad. Honestly, I wouldn't use my own intuition here, either - would need a simple study to confirm.

 

Wow, I don’t usually comment on these internet rage stories, but this one is a doozy. Maybe I sympathize because I travel overseas a lot.

 

I’m no legal expert, so couldn’t tell you the nitty-gritty of boarding etc. (Gromnir seems to be doing fine playing Devils advocate over there so I’ll leave him to it) but in terms of common sense / what a rational guy on the street would do, there was a major screw-up here. I don’t know if the whole airline deserves to go down, but whoever was in charge of that fiasco should be fired.

 

As I understand, after no one took their 800$ offer (whether you think this is a good offer or not is debatable) they randomly selected someone to kick off the plane. What is this, the Hunger Games? Who thought that was a good idea? Couldn’t the employees just drive down to their next destination (it was a domestic flight, yes?) instead of holding up the entire flight? Maybe the security guys were just doing their job, but what genius pointed them at the guy and said “Remove that man by whatever means necessary! We need his seat!” Ever heard of... the customer comes first?

 

Well, once you decide overbooking is a planned and regular occurrence rather than a freak accident, you have to bump people randomly. What else are you going to do once nobody volunteers? In this case the whole 'seating employees' thing was thrown into the mix, but sometimes that's not it. (If the law mandated airlines to continue raising the price until someone volunteered, you'd get people abusing the process, and also delay the flights - though I suppose that might effectively force airlines to abandon this practice. And then we'd just get the cost passed on to everybody.) 

 

"Customer comes first" has never been a thing in US airports and US airlines. I've learnt that at a personal level, you profit most by being quiet, unobtrusive and invisible, lest you anger an overworked and aggressive TSA agent - and heaven forbid you pester US airline stewardesses, who are rude and incompetent to a point of hilarity (you don't really appreciate how much this is the case until you fly some other airlines) - and of course once law enforcement enters the field you are basically screwed. 

 

...and then, of course, you profit most by being firm, aggressive, greedy, and manipulative on the phone to those airlines to get your coupons and compensation for their various failures, meaning the system incentivises you to kowtow on one end then be an arsehole to those weaker than you to defend your rights. It's a pisshole.

[Zoraptor]

 

I don't understand American consumer practice at all, you guys let both law enforcment, government and cooperations get away with so much crazy ****. I can't even imagine the public outrage if something like that happened so openly in Europe.

 

Which is not to say stuff like that never happens here. I've just noticed it's always a little more extreme when it's in the states.

Maybe it just gets more coverage here.

 

 

It's a lot rarer to overbook in most other places either because most flights aren't full or because the tolerances are lower. Regular overbooking here would fall subject to the Consumers Guarantee Act and contract law; offering a service for payment when you know there's a reasonable chance it cannot be fulfilled as described will get you a legal smack. It's happened once on a non US flight for me, KLM from Schiphol to NY but it was only one person effected- he was standing at the gate during boarding with the attendants to see if anyone checked in didn't board as they simply closed boarding/ check in once the flight was full. Since it's done sequentially they can also usually say that they deny carriage because those effected are too late (as if everyone turns up x hours early as supposedly required) instead of overbooking, and being late is your fault so a free rebooking and accommodation is a privilege in that case.

 

This case wasn't classic overbooking anyway, since the passengers removed were already seated rather than denied seating; the airline decided that they needed those seats for themselves very late in the piece and after the flight was loaded.

[Orogun01]

Considering there was a case of a transportation lawyer in 2004 who won a suit against United just for denying him his flight for the same reasons, I would say that the current victims have a better case.

[Valsuelm]

There are multiple grounds on which to sue, and at least a couple of them have solid ground. (Note that lawsuits don't always need solid ground to get off the ground)

 

I'd be surprised if it ever went to court though. It is definitely in United Airline's best interest to offer Dr. Dao one hell of a settlement (with a standard non-disclosure agreement) to avoid the continued negative publicity, as well as some possible legal scenarios unfavorable to UA as well as potentially the airlines at large. This is something they want to put behind them asap.

[algroth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV28_ENzFog

[algroth]

Couldn’t the employees just drive down to their next destination (it was a domestic flight, yes?) instead of holding up the entire flight?

 

Actually, to my understanding Louisville and Chicago are only a 4.5-hour drive apart, and given that the flight was delayed for two hours following this incident, there's a good chance that getting a cab for the employees or even *offering* one to any takers in the plane would have possibly been quicker in the end.

[Guard Dog]

Well, I guess this United thing isn't so bad. After all, this poor guy in Mexico was removed from the plane in mid-flight: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mans-body-seen-tossed-from-plane-found-on-roof-of-mexican-hospital/ar-BBzLVoh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Raithe]