United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

Compeltely different. Couple says they only did it once. Airline and marshall who was flying said it was more than once and they were not following crew instructions and had in fact been trying to move to seats that were upcharges. If someone is sitting in your assigned seat when you board you tell the FA then you don't decide to move. Plus can't imagine in the time it to to board some guy was already napping across two seats.

I didn't see where the marshall commented.
I don't know what happened and there's really not enough info for me to decide what I think. No way i'm just believing United though. They lied about the behavior of the other guy.
 
I didn't see where the marshall commented.
I don't know what happened and there's really not enough info for me to decide what I think. No way i'm just believing United though. They lied about the behavior of the other guy.

well, when they said the US marshalls told them to get off, i thought that was kinda a lie considered US marshalls dont really handle anything with the plane... unless they are escorting a prisoner, but to costa rica? that must be a paradise jail... :P
 
well, when they said the US marshalls told them to get off, i thought that was kinda a lie considered US marshalls dont really handle anything with the plane... unless they are escorting a prisoner, but to costa rica? that must be a paradise jail... :P

That could just be that they misspoke though or they didn't know a federal marshal and a federal air marshal aren't the same. I wouldn't really jump to the conclusion that they must be liars because they said federal marshal instead of federal air marshal.
 
I don't believe the wedding couple. There are two big holes in their story. First of all, I call "BS" on someone sleeping in their row. Flight 1737 originates in IAH so I don't know how someone would have boarded and then already fallen asleep. Secondly, according to this story ,http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ted-flight-en-route-wedding-article-1.3062286, they moved to row 21 which is an EXIT row. They simply say that they moved a couple of rows forward but never mentioned that it was an exit row. The plane was scheduled to leave at 5:35 pm ... $5 will get you $10 that they were already inebriated and unable to satisfy the requirements to be in an exit row anyway.

If they wanted the upgrade they should have asked at the gate and not just parked their butts in an exit row on their own.
 


You took mnrose's statement "vote with your feet" too literally, if such a situation were possible. Vote with one's feet means bring your business to a competitor.
Of course it does. And my point is that there aren't enough direct competitors (airlines) -- and even less differentiation between most of them wrt service. And for many people (business travelers, those traveling overseas, etc.), there aren't realistic options BESIDES airlines (rail, driving, etc.).

We have very little ACTUAL choice in the airline industry. Makes "voting with your feet" the way you would with many other products/services (e.g. restaurants, groceries, clothing, etc.) more difficult -- or even practically impossible depending on your market.
 
Last edited:
well, when they said the US marshalls told them to get off, i thought that was kinda a lie considered US marshalls dont really handle anything with the plane... unless they are escorting a prisoner, but to costa rica? that must be a paradise jail... :P

That could just be that they misspoke though or they didn't know a federal marshal and a federal air marshal aren't the same. I wouldn't really jump to the conclusion that they must be liars because they said federal marshal instead of federal air marshal.

The plot thickens. According to the NY Post both the TSA and United are saying there wasn't even an air marshal involved and it was simply United employees who asked them to deplane. United is saying the couple moved to the economy plus seats, were told they would have to pay extra to stay in those seats. They refused to pay and refused to leave the seats so the FA told them they would need to deplane for refusing to follow instructions. Again I've seen this happen on a Jetblue flight and although they did not remove the person they did say that airline officials would be waiting at the gate if he refused to go back to his ticketd seat (we were already in the air) after much grumbling the man finally went back to his regular seat. If you want to sit in a seat that costs extra you have to pay for it.
 
Of course it does. And my point is that there aren't enough direct competitors (airlines) -- and even less differentiation between most of them wrt service. And for many people (business travelers, those traveling overseas, etc.), there aren't realistic options BESIDES airlines (rail, driving, etc.).

We have very little ACTUAL choice in the airline industry. Makes "voting with your feet" the way you would with many other products/services (e.g. restaurants, groceries, clothing, etc.) more difficult -- or even practically impossible depending on your market.

You're exactly right about that. On SNL this weekend the news anchor said, "I will never, ever fly United Airlines again...unless of course they have the cheapest flight to wherever I am going." They're all the same really and there aren't enough of them to foster the kind of competition that brings about industry change.
 


The plot thickens. According to the NY Post both the TSA and United are saying there wasn't even an air marshal involved and it was simply United employees who asked them to deplane. United is saying the couple moved to the economy plus seats, were told they would have to pay extra to stay in those seats. They refused to pay and refused to leave the seats so the FA told them they would need to deplane for refusing to follow instructions. Again I've seen this happen on a Jetblue flight and although they did not remove the person they did say that airline officials would be waiting at the gate if he refused to go back to his ticketd seat (we were already in the air) after much grumbling the man finally went back to his regular seat. If you want to sit in a seat that costs extra you have to pay for it.
This one does sound a tad fishy to me so far. With its ludicrous recent actions, United in particular has opened itself up to anyone looking to make another example of them... thinking that the time is right to capitalize and take advantage of the bad press. And the bill on not acting with common sense and upping the $$ for volunteers keeps growing...

Don't know that this IS what this couple did, but I think the current environment may well draw out such behavior in some, unfortunately.
 
You're exactly right about that. On SNL this weekend the news anchor said, "I will never, ever fly United Airlines again...unless of course they have the cheapest flight to wherever I am going." They're all the same really and there aren't enough of them to foster the kind of competition that brings about industry change.
Agreed! The two exceptions to me recently have been Jet Blue and Alaska, and we ARE willing to pay a premium for them when they fit our needs (schedule, direct flight, etc.).
 
We have very little ACTUAL choice in the airline industry. Makes "voting with your feet" the way you would with many other products/services (e.g. restaurants, groceries, clothing, etc.) more difficult -- or even practically impossible depending on your market.

Still, it's disingenuous to interpret "vote with one's feet" as literally walking to the destination.
 
Still, it's disingenuous to interpret "vote with one's feet" as literally walking to the destination.
:rotfl: I never did. Re-read.... :)


"Vote with your feet" -- This is just not reasonable. If I am going to Hawaii, I can't exactly rent a car. If I am traveling for work with time at a premium, I can't drive across the country each time. And to the extent that I CAN pick an airline with better service (e.g. JetBlue or Alaska), I do -- even at a premium.

We are a captive market to a very large extent. And MOST airlines have taken advantage. It is time they make some changes.

We can disagree, clearly. I am NOT happy with the level of customer service. I think the "outcry" on this is largely because many other people aren't either.

Look -- I get what you're saying. But options are FAR MORE LIMITED than choosing something like a store to make a purchase. Never said I was captive to ONE AIRLINE -- the choices are VERY LIMITED as compared to most markets.

And most airlines have the same lazy approach to customer service these days, making REAL options even more limited.

The giant open market situation you're suggesting just isn't there in air travel.

And if you read my past posts, I never said they should disallow overbooking. I think 1) some like united should revisit their algorithms, and 2) they should adopt policies that allow MARKET RATE to be paid for VOLUNTEERS to be bumped, and allow LATITUDE FOR EMPLOYEES TO USE COMMON SENSE.

Of course it does. And my point is that there aren't enough direct competitors (airlines) -- and even less differentiation between most of them wrt service. And for many people (business travelers, those traveling overseas, etc.), there aren't realistic options BESIDES airlines (rail, driving, etc.).

We have very little ACTUAL choice in the airline industry. Makes "voting with your feet" the way you would with many other products/services (e.g. restaurants, groceries, clothing, etc.) more difficult -- or even practically impossible depending on your market.
 
On Saturday Night Live this weekend. :rolleyes1

(You can skip to the 1:46 minute mark if you want to speed through all the singing.)


 
There's another video out. Taken from the passenger behind. I think United and/or the law enforcement there at the time might be in a spot of trouble.

Apologies if its already been mentioned.

As for the wedding couple, i think they're FOS.
 
That could just be that they misspoke though or they didn't know a federal marshal and a federal air marshal aren't the same. I wouldn't really jump to the conclusion that they must be liars because they said federal marshal instead of federal air marshal.

The TSA has commented about the case and said that no TSA personnel or air marshal was involved in the removal. I find it very difficult to believe that a deputy US Marshal would be involved in removing a passenger from a plane. It's typically the local law enforcement that has police services at the airport.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ding-just-days-after-public-relations-fiasco/

Michael McCarthy, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration, said that neither federal air marshals nor TSA officers were involved in the incident.​
 
There's another video out. Taken from the passenger behind. I think United and/or the law enforcement there at the time might be in a spot of trouble.

Apologies if its already been mentioned.

As for the wedding couple, i think they're FOS.

That's been out at least 5 days. It doesn't really change my opinion of the case. At the time I feel the onus was on the passenger to comply and worry about seeking redress later. Any law enforcement called to remove a passenger by an airline should do so with minimally required force if there isn't compliance. I also believe that how those officers removed the passenger was out of line.
 
Agreed! The two exceptions to me recently have been Jet Blue and Alaska, and we ARE willing to pay a premium for them when they fit our needs (schedule, direct flight, etc.).

Agreed. I am always willing to pay a premium to fly on Alaska. Seattle's hometown airline...

 
There was a great article in the Wall St. Journal earlier in the week how United has a rules based culture and doesn't allow their employees much flexibility in dealing with these types of situations. Seems like it was almost inevitable.
 
As some of us were saying, up the $$$, reduce overbooking, empower employees to use common sense. In other words, DUH...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ay-voluntarily-bumped-passengers-up-to-10-000

"United Airlines is making changes after a man was forcibly removed from one of its flights earlier this month, promising to cut down on overbooking and raise the maximum incentive for passengers to skip a flight to $10,000.

On the flight that became a public relations nightmare for the company, compensation for being voluntarily bumped had topped out at $1,000.

United will "empower its personnel to make decisions and find solutions that make sense for both customers and employees," CEO Oscar Munoz said in a letter to senators Wednesday that was sent in response to inquiries about the unusual removal."​
 
The City of Chicago fired two of the officers who took part in removing Dr. Dao. One was the officer who did the actual yanking while the other was his sergeant who they concluded failed to properly document the incident. Apparently another officer resigned after serving a suspension.

http://chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OIG-3rd-Quarter-2017-Report.pdf
This quarter resulted in the disposition of significant administrative investigations, among other matters. Most notably, an OIG investigation found four Chicago Department of Aviation (CCDA) employees mishandled a non-threatening situation that resulted in the physically violent forcible removal of a passenger aboard United Airline Express Flight 3411 on April 9,2017. Acting on OIG’s findings and recommendations, CDA terminated the Aviation Security Officer (AASO) who improperly escalated the incident and an Aviation Security Sergeant found to have been involved in the deliberate removal of material facts from an employee report. CDA, in accordance with OIG findings and recommendations, suspended two other ASOs involved in the incident and its aftermath.​
 
The City of Chicago fired two of the officers who took part in removing Dr. Dao. One was the officer who did the actual yanking while the other was his sergeant who they concluded failed to properly document the incident. Apparently another officer resigned after serving a suspension.

http://chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OIG-3rd-Quarter-2017-Report.pdf
This quarter resulted in the disposition of significant administrative investigations, among other matters. Most notably, an OIG investigation found four Chicago Department of Aviation (CCDA) employees mishandled a non-threatening situation that resulted in the physically violent forcible removal of a passenger aboard United Airline Express Flight 3411 on April 9,2017. Acting on OIG’s findings and recommendations, CDA terminated the Aviation Security Officer (AASO) who improperly escalated the incident and an Aviation Security Sergeant found to have been involved in the deliberate removal of material facts from an employee report. CDA, in accordance with OIG findings and recommendations, suspended two other ASOs involved in the incident and its aftermath.​


Took long enough.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top