United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

[Pea-n-Me]

And many of you say he holds no blame/responsibility for the escalation of the situation. Four people were told to exit. Three people exited without incident. If he had chosen to leave, no police would've been called. He also said "I am not leaving. You will have to drag me from the plane." So they did. That is not the same as saying he deserved what he got but he is far from an innocent lamb just minding his own business when out of the blue he was assaulted and thrown to the ground and dragged off the plane.

He said they'd have to drag him off in direct response to an officer threatening they were going to drag him off.

They said it first!

http://people.com/human-interest/fo...nger-police-arguing-before-dragged-off-plane/

 

[sunshinehighway]

You still don't want a case where the police are charged with determining if the airline is justified in requesting a removal. Of course with the new guidelines they're going to refuse if it's overbooking case, but it gets more complicated if it is something the airline feels is justified, but the passenger feels is not. If a couple of passengers get into a mild argument and the crew wants them off, those passengers may feel that it's unjustified and refuse to leave. This type of case is far more common than overbooking, but with this United case in the news I'm not sure if more people will be emboldened to ignore orders to get off a plane believing that the police have no legal authority to do so.

It's better than the police acting as mindless goons for the airlines.
The airlines need to find a way to handle problems. Does a mild argument warrant both passengers being removed? Is the issue resolved? What caused the argument? What is the best way to deal with these passengers? How about using people skills to resolve issues and save "the must be removed for being a threat" card for when it actually applies.

 

[bcla]

It's better than the police acting as mindless goons for the airlines.
The airlines need to find a way to handle problems. Does a mild argument warrant both passengers being removed? Is the issue resolved? What caused the argument? What is the best way to deal with these passengers? How about using people skills to resolve issues and save "the must be removed for being a threat" card for when it actually applies.

That's why the captain is given almost absolute authority to decide on these things. Here's an article on this case by an attorney (and commercial pilot) who deals with aviation law:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

Even if United did breach their contract with Dr. Dao, he would still have had no legal right to remain on board. In the event that the airline breaches its agreement with the passenger, the passenger has a legal claim against the airline. The remedy that the passenger would be entitled to recover in that instance is monetary damages. It is of critical importance to realize, however, that the non-breaching party has absolutely no legal right whatsoever to compel the airline to perform its contractual obligations. Read that sentence again. When the other party breaches a contract YOU CANNOT LEGALLY FORCE THEM TO DO THE THING THEY WERE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO DO, you can only sue them for monetary damages. Compelling the breaching party to perform is called “specific performance,” and it is a remedy that is simply unavailable in this type of case.

There is little doubt that United could have avoided this entire situation by recognizing that they were overbooked prior to beginning the boarding process, but the fact is that it was Dr. Dao’s decision to act like a petulant child and to go “limp like a ragdoll” that made it necessary to forcibly remove him. It is Dr. Dao that is the bad actor here, and those who are acting as though he is some sort of social justice hero are failing to see the big picture. When you are on board an aircraft your life and the lives of everyone else on board are in the hands of the flight crew. They have a duty to comply with (and sometimes to enforce) the laws that govern aviation operations, and passengers have a legal obligation to not interfere with their performance of those duties. Dr. Dao took it upon himself to unilaterally dictate to United and the flight crew that his authority over the flight was superior to their own. At that point, the prudent decision of the captain was to remove him from the flight. As an FAA certificated Airline Transport Pilot I can say with confidence that I would not so much as start an engine if I knew that there was a passenger on board who was already being confrontational with another crewmember. Why? Because the ONLY opportunity to remove an unruly passenger is prior to departure. Thus, all decisions of this nature, for the safety of everyone on board and on the ground, must be heavily biased toward the assumption that a potential problem that is evident on the ground is going to escalate into an actual problem in the air.​

 

[PrincessShmoo]

There is little doubt that United could have avoided this entire situation by recognizing that they were overbooked prior to beginning the boarding process,

But it's been confirmed that this was not an overbooking situation. Everyone holding a ticket on that plane was there and seated. Then 4 crew members needed to be placed on the flight. Since all seats were full, United needed to find 4 empty seats to put them in.

 

[sunshinehighway]

That's why the captain is given almost absolute authority to decide on these things. Here's an article on this case by an attorney (and commercial pilot) who deals with aviation law:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

Even if United did breach their contract with Dr. Dao, he would still have had no legal right to remain on board. In the event that the airline breaches its agreement with the passenger, the passenger has a legal claim against the airline. The remedy that the passenger would be entitled to recover in that instance is monetary damages. It is of critical importance to realize, however, that the non-breaching party has absolutely no legal right whatsoever to compel the airline to perform its contractual obligations. Read that sentence again. When the other party breaches a contract YOU CANNOT LEGALLY FORCE THEM TO DO THE THING THEY WERE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO DO, you can only sue them for monetary damages. Compelling the breaching party to perform is called “specific performance,” and it is a remedy that is simply unavailable in this type of case.

There is little doubt that United could have avoided this entire situation by recognizing that they were overbooked prior to beginning the boarding process, but the fact is that it was Dr. Dao’s decision to act like a petulant child and to go “limp like a ragdoll” that made it necessary to forcibly remove him. It is Dr. Dao that is the bad actor here, and those who are acting as though he is some sort of social justice hero are failing to see the big picture. When you are on board an aircraft your life and the lives of everyone else on board are in the hands of the flight crew. They have a duty to comply with (and sometimes to enforce) the laws that govern aviation operations, and passengers have a legal obligation to not interfere with their performance of those duties. Dr. Dao took it upon himself to unilaterally dictate to United and the flight crew that his authority over the flight was superior to their own. At that point, the prudent decision of the captain was to remove him from the flight. As an FAA certificated Airline Transport Pilot I can say with confidence that I would not so much as start an engine if I knew that there was a passenger on board who was already being confrontational with another crewmember. Why? Because the ONLY opportunity to remove an unruly passenger is prior to departure. Thus, all decisions of this nature, for the safety of everyone on board and on the ground, must be heavily biased toward the assumption that a potential problem that is evident on the ground is going to escalate into an actual problem in the air.​

Yeah I don't really care what all that says.
The guy wasn't a threat. He didn't need to be removed because he was a threat. He needed to be removed because they wanted to give his seat to someone else. They had authority to remove him because they are given authority over passengers for safety issues, not to remove passengers because they want someone else to have his seat. That is abusing the power given to remove people. If they abuse the power given to them then clearly they can't handle it. If they can't properly handle the authority given to them then the police would be wise to question why they are being called to act because it might just turn out they are being used as a mindless goon squad.

 

[bcla]

Yeah I don't really care what all that says.
The guy wasn't a threat. He didn't need to be removed because he was a threat. He needed to be removed because they wanted to give his seat to someone else. They had authority to remove him because they are given authority over passengers for safety issues, not to remove passengers because they want someone else to have his seat. That is abusing the power given to remove people. If they abuse the power given to them then clearly they can't handle it. If they can't properly handle the authority given to them then the police would be wise to question why they are being called to act because it might just turn out they are being used as a mindless goon squad.

Whose call is it? The captain has the ultimate authority, and in any case can always refuse to start the engines. No captain who asks for security to eject a passenger does so hoping that passenger gets roughed up. They're hoping that veneer of authority encourages one to leave without force.

Again I bring up stadium or nightclub security provided by off duty police. It's not their duty to judge why a person is worthy of ejection. It may be unfair and may even violate an implied contract, but it's not the officer's duty to adjudicate contract law.

It is pretty clear under the law that the only remedy if a captain says you're off is compensation. You really want police to have to judge worthiness of ejection? And frankly if Dr. Dao had refused to leave and there was nothing more than the officers and him standing off, it's obvious that the captain would have simply refused to start the engines. At that point he's going to have do deal with a plane full of angry passengers.

 

[DisBabe94]

Dang, y'all are still discussing weren't we supposed to move on to the next viral story by now?? hehehe (KIDDING!)

 

[mummabear]

But it's been confirmed that this was not an overbooking situation. Everyone holding a ticket on that plane was there and seated. Then 4 crew members needed to be placed on the flight. Since all seats were full, United needed to find 4 empty seats to put them in.

Again NEED is not the correct word, they wanted the seats for 4 passengers but they didn't actually NEED them.
They could have found 4 already empty seats on another flight that left 1 hour later....

Yeah I don't really care what all that says.
The guy wasn't a threat. He didn't need to be removed because he was a threat. He needed to be removed because they wanted to give his seat to someone else. They had authority to remove him because they are given authority over passengers for safety issues, not to remove passengers because they want someone else to have his seat. That is abusing the power given to remove people. If they abuse the power given to them then clearly they can't handle it. If they can't properly handle the authority given to them then the police would be wise to question why they are being called to act because it might just turn out they are being used as a mindless goon squad.

Agree with this 100%
It's basically gas lighting to force a situation then blame someone for how they act to the situation.

Whose call is it? The captain has the ultimate authority, and in any case can always refuse to start the engines. No captain who asks for security to eject a passenger does so hoping that passenger gets roughed up. They're hoping that veneer of authority encourages one to leave without force.

Apparently not the captains because his authority doesn't take hold until the door is closed/armed.
I have no respect for this attorney who is referring to the victim as a petculent child.

 

[mummabear]

And many of you say he holds no blame/responsibility for the escalation of the situation. Four people were told to exit. Three people exited without incident. If he had chosen to leave, no police would've been called. He also said "I am not leaving. You will have to drag me from the plane." So they did. That is not the same as saying he deserved what he got but he is far from an innocent lamb just minding his own business when out of the blue he was assaulted and thrown to the ground and dragged off the plane.

I believe people have the right to a peaceful protest.
He was in fact minding his own business when they told him to get off for no good reason.

Let's change the location, you are at a restaraunt hey since it's Disboards let's say you are at CRT, you have booked a table and paid for your meal 6 months ago. You have been seated, then a CM tells you that you need to leave because they want your table for someone else. They will give you a table at the next "avalible" seating or refund your money.
Would you just get up and go no questions asked? Act like an "adult" and do as you are told?
Or might oh tell them no?

 

[sunshinehighway]

Delta has now greatly increased the amount their employees can offer passengers to voluntarily give up their seat on overbooked fights. Looks like another positive step for the flying public resulting directly from this man standing up for himself. I'm sure that wouldn't have happened if he just quietly got off the flight and later sent a strongly worded email.

 

[asta]

Delta has now greatly increased the amount their employees can offer passengers to voluntarily give up their seat on overbooked fights. Looks like another positive step for the flying public resulting directly from this man standing up for himself. I'm sure that wouldn't have happened if he just quietly got off the flight and later sent a strongly worded email.

I heard on tonight's news that Delta has upped the amount to $10,000. For that amount I may book a flight just to see if I get bumped. Just kidding but I bet they get takers before it gets that high.

 

[Jennasis]

While I know that this situation wasn't an overbooking issue...

Does anyone know why overbooking is still legally allowed? Why isn't that considered "double-dipping". If someone paid for an airline seat and then no-shows, it does not matter if that seat flies vacant as the fee for that seat has been paid for already. the airline collected all the money it should be entitled to for that seat.

Am I missing something? Heck, if everyone no-showed for a flight and it flew empty from point A to point B, wouldn't it cost the airline less in fuel since there would be less weight? They already got paid for every seat. No?

 

[MillauFr]

Delta has now greatly increased the amount their employees can offer passengers to voluntarily give up their seat on overbooked fights. Looks like another positive step for the flying public resulting directly from this man standing up for himself. I'm sure that wouldn't have happened if he just quietly got off the flight and later sent a strongly worded email.

That is because Delta is a well run airline and gives its front line employees the authority to handle these types of situations. Their management is run by people who have years of airline management experience. United is run by lawyers and bean counters. You could tell the lawyers were writing all of those press releases on Monday.

 

[wvjules]

Last week Delta had a lot of issues stemming from the weather. I was stuck in Cincinnati for the night. My flight was delayed delayed delayed due to weather then it ended up being cancelled it was cancelled because at that point there was no flight crew available. You know what delta did? This:

"As a Medallion® Member, you expect and deserve more.

Hello, Julie SkyMiles® #xxxxxx>

20,000 MILES TO SAY WE'RE SORRY.

Last week, severe weather and tornadic activity at our Atlanta hub caused a major disruption in our flight operations and your travel plans. Our response in the days following was out of character, and I am sorry for what you experienced. It was an accumulation of events that began with unprecedented severe weather in Atlanta on April 5th, when seven storm cells, including tornadic activity, passed over the airport and shut down our operation for much of the day. Our recovery was hampered by a lack of available seats resulting from heightened spring break travel volume, as well as an inability of our crew-tracking systems and processes to adequately position our people to do their jobs.

I have heard from many of you who feel like we let you down. In acknowledgment of what you endured, 20,000 bonus miles will be added to your SkyMiles account in the next 48 hours.

Thank you for your patience and your loyalty. We will continue to review all aspects of this disruption and develop a plan to avoid a similar situation in the future, ensuring we deliver on the reliability and service you expect and deserve from Delta."

I am a delta flyer for life now.

United will never get my money.

 

[bcla]

Apparently not the captains because his authority doesn't take hold until the door is closed/armed.
I have no respect for this attorney who is referring to the victim as a petculent child.

In the US the FAA gives the captain full authority once the door is closed, but at the gate the airline still has full authority over the plane. I've heard of captains and gate agents in disagreement, but in this case there was none.

 

[bcla]

While I know that this situation wasn't an overbooking issue...

Does anyone know why overbooking is still legally allowed? Why isn't that considered "double-dipping". If someone paid for an airline seat and then no-shows, it does not matter if that seat flies vacant as the fee for that seat has been paid for already. the airline collected all the money it should be entitled to for that seat.

Am I missing something? Heck, if everyone no-showed for a flight and it flew empty from point A to point B, wouldn't it cost the airline less in fuel since there would be less weight? They already got paid for every seat. No?

You're missing unrestricted fare, which is the backbone of where the airlines make money. There's also standby and modifications with change fees.

 

[mnrose]

While I know that this situation wasn't an overbooking issue...

Does anyone know why overbooking is still legally allowed? Why isn't that considered "double-dipping". If someone paid for an airline seat and then no-shows, it does not matter if that seat flies vacant as the fee for that seat has been paid for already. the airline collected all the money it should be entitled to for that seat.

Am I missing something? Heck, if everyone no-showed for a flight and it flew empty from point A to point B, wouldn't it cost the airline less in fuel since there would be less weight? They already got paid for every seat. No?

They over book because statistically, a certain percentage of passengers are no shows. By "double booking" and keeping the flights as full as possible, they can keep fares relatively lower. We could regulate airlines again, I suppose, but back when airlines were regulated, prices were MUCH higher (higher than they are in real dollars even, not inflated dollars). In the VAST majority of cases, they guess correctly on the overbooking (because they have sophisticated software programs which allow them to predict this quite accurately, and when they are wrong, in the VAST majority of cases, they get willing volunteers to be bumped in order to get compensation. If you go on frequent flyer websites, you will find threads where people talk about the best strategy for getting bumped, and what the current going rate for compensation is on the different airlines.

This is an aberration in the "bumping" world. Happens all the time, and generally without fuss.

There is no reason for airlines to change their overall procedure because a single case goes badly. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of voluntary bumps every year. Delta leads the pack at 130,000. In addition to the voluntary bumps, there were 40,000 involuntary bumps last year. How many of these ended badly? Do we really need to regulate the crap out of airlines on this point when it obviously goes pretty well the vast majority of the time. This case is going to be worked out (apparently) in a lawsuit, and that's as it should be.

 

[bcla]

I believe people have the right to a peaceful protest.
He was in fact minding his own business when they told him to get off for no good reason.

Let's change the location, you are at a restaraunt hey since it's Disboards let's say you are at CRT, you have booked a table and paid for your meal 6 months ago. You have been seated, then a CM tells you that you need to leave because they want your table for someone else. They will give you a table at the next "avalible" seating or refund your money.
Would you just get up and go no questions asked? Act like an "adult" and do as you are told?
Or might oh tell them no?

You mean make a scene? When the manager first tells Disney security or even Orange County Sheriff deputies that you are to be removed for refusing to leave, do you believe that arguing about how unfair you've been treated is going to be persuasive? All they need to say is that you are no longer welcome and refusal to move is considered trespassing. There's also disturbing the peace.

There is frankly no such thing as a legal protest on private property without permission. If you're protesting on the sidewalk it's legal. You take that to a business and by definition they have the right to tell you to leave.

 

[bcla]

They over book because statistically, a certain percentage of passengers are no shows. By "double booking" and keeping the flights as full as possible, they can keep fares relatively lower. We could regulate airlines again, I suppose, but back when airlines were regulated, prices were MUCH higher (higher than they are in real dollars even, not inflated dollars). In the VAST majority of cases, they guess correctly on the overbooking (because they have sophisticated software programs which allow them to predict this quite accurately, and when they are wrong, in the VAST majority of cases, they get willing volunteers to be bumped in order to get compensation. If you go on frequent flyer websites, you will find threads where people talk about the best strategy for getting bumped, and what the current going rate for compensation is on the different airlines.

Even during regulated air travel there could be overbooking. I recall when most ticketing was through standard IATA air coupon forms. I heard about a kid who learned how they were written and scammed some blank forms. He was traveling all over the country on them until he got caught. But what that told me was that there wasn't a direct link between tickets issued and available seats. It was also back when seats were assigned only at the airport.

 

[Jennasis]

They over book because statistically, a certain percentage of passengers are no shows. By "double booking" and keeping the flights as full as possible, they can keep fares relatively lower. We could regulate airlines again, I suppose, but back when airlines were regulated, prices were MUCH higher (higher than they are in real dollars even, not inflated dollars). In the VAST majority of cases, they guess correctly on the overbooking (because they have sophisticated software programs which allow them to predict this quite accurately, and when they are wrong, in the VAST majority of cases, they get willing volunteers to be bumped in order to get compensation. If you go on frequent flyer websites, you will find threads where people talk about the best strategy for getting bumped, and what the current going rate for compensation is on the different airlines.

This is an aberration in the "bumping" world. Happens all the time, and generally without fuss.

There is no reason for airlines to change their overall procedure because a single case goes badly. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of voluntary bumps every year. Delta leads the pack at 130,000. In addition to the voluntary bumps, there were 40,000 involuntary bumps last year. How many of these ended badly? Do we really need to regulate the crap out of airlines on this point when it obviously goes pretty well the vast majority of the time. This case is going to be worked out (apparently) in a lawsuit, and that's as it should be.

(again I said I understood that THIS unfortunate case had nothing to do with overbooking and I'm not suggesting this rule should change because of the United incident...)

I'm asking why does it matter if there is a person in the seat if the fare has been paid in full already? Is it simply a tool (double dipping) to keep fares low? It just seems shady.

Man I'm glad we drive to Disney LOL.

It hasn't ever happened to me, but when you buy your ticket are you told right then that the flight is full and you are flying on standby?