2Smashed4U
Banned
Man, the front page of Reddit is *brutal* right now towards United
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
United Airlines violently drags a doctor off a plane so employee could take his seat
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
Seems like lots of folks are surprised at the level of power airlines have under the law. It is very friendly to them. No-so-much to flyers.
Unfortunately, most people don't care about airline regulations until the moment where it impacts their travel plans. It seems like it takes a certain level of public outrage to effect change, such as when the massive delays a few years back led into the discussions around the "Traveler's Bill of Rights" back in 2012. Even that died due to lack of action.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3302/text
It's not common, but it happens. I've seen it happen more than once on trans-con flights.
The following statement is included with every airline ticket sold in the US:
That warning is mandated by Federal law since airlines are allowed to overbook. You can hate the practice of overbooking, but no one who buys a ticket can claim they weren't given notice of it unless the airline didn't follow the law.
Seats aren't sold twice. Even non-refundable tickets have value that can be reused on a later flight. It's not like if you miss a flight, the ticket value just disappears. If overbooking were prohibited by law though, that is exactly what would happen. You miss a flight and that's it. You end up buying a new ticket at full cost.
Invol bumps would be getting more than the offer of $800 airline credit. They would be getting cash/check compensation.
Overbooking is 100% legal in both the US and the EU. The issue is in how much passengers pay attention to it. Disclosures are required on all US tickets, but most passengers ignore the disclosure because it's always there.
This paper (from 2004) is a good summary of why overbooking happens and the advantages it provides to the market as whole, but also in how it could do better, especially around mandated compensation.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-79-5-Blanchard.pdf
For passengers who choose to exploit the system, the rewards can be great, but for those who are unaware, the system can be frustrating and seem useless.
Just like credit card churners, there are folks who will purposefully book flights that are likely to be oversold in order to get bumped. Most will go for voluntary bumps because the payout is guaranteed. There is no way to guarantee that you get selected for invol, and if you're a frequent flyer, you'll likely get passed over for an invol (oddly enough, if you are a FF and you volunteer, you usually go to the top of the volunteer list).
During the holidays it is possible to get multiple bumps in the same day and walk away with a solid stack of airline credit and/or free flights.
It is difficult to see what legal argument could be made against United here. At most, there would be the possibility of damages for not making the flight, but that is contractually capped at $1350. He could argue that the cap is not fair, but United would likely counter with the fact that the cap is aligned with invol cash payouts as well as argue that every passenger is offered travel insurance and he chose not to purchase it.
United would likely also argue that the overbooking/oversold warning is included with every ticket as a legal requirement, so there is no way that he could claim to not know that overbooking was a potential, if exceedingly small, risk.
I suspect he would have a better claim against the police officers for excessive force, but that has the issue of going up against the police department.
Now, if he could show that he was selected due to his race or ethnicity or sexuality or another protected class, then he would have a slam-dunk of a case, but that's not likely unless the gate agent didn't follow procedure and made the call on who to bump themselves. As long as it was run through the computer, which ranks passengers into groups based on status and fare type, and then selects from the lowest ranked group, any potential discrimination claim is likely to fail.
Don't kid yourself. This is not something that is unique to United. All US and European airlines do this. It is perfectly legal under the law. Until the law changes, overbooking and bumping will continue to happen. We don't often see cases of invol bumping highlighted because it is 1) rare relative to the number of successful flights and 2) most people who get a check are thrilled to get bonus cash, but it happens every week of every month.
Getting picked as an invol bump is very unlikely.
For reference:
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/...ansportation_statistics/html/table_01_64.html
In 2016 0.09% of all air passengers in the US were bumped. In real numbers that is 552,000 people.
Of that, 46,000 were invol bumps. That works out to 0.007% of passengers were invol.
It was most likely a rest issue thing. If they don't get the mandated legal rest period, then they're not allowed to crew the next flight and it's as if they were never there in the first place.
You only get flight credit if you take a voluntary bump.
Invol is cold hard cash.
Denied boarding language on the ticket is not written by United's lawyers. It is language that is mandated by law.
You can't just dismiss it as unfair T&C or a feature of a contract of adhesion.
Courts tend to follow the law and a notice that is dictated by law will be given a great deal of deference by the court system.
United wasn't "arbitrary and capricious" in how it selected who to bump. It has a defined process in how passengers are selected. He would have to show that United didn't follow that process in how it selected people, which is unlikely since that is done by a computer program.
If anything, he might have a claim against the police officers that responded, but that's not an easy point to litigate.
More accurately, he has a PR victory against United right now. It is difficult to see how he would have a legal claim against United that would result in a "huge legal settlement."
That's why it is invol. The airline has the legal right to do so. It is rare, but it happens.
Delta was fined for mis-classifying invol passenger bumps as voluntary. It wasn't fined for bumping.
The accuracy in reporting (and why airlines always push for voluntary) is because they want to keep their invol numbers as close to zero as possible.
This is the most likely situation. Another crew probably went long for some reason and wouldn't meet rest requirements. Or someone called in sick. So the replacement crew needed to be moved into place.
If you are ordered off as an invol, you are entitled to the cash/check compensation as defined by law. That is not considered volunteering.
If you don't believe that the cash/check offer covers your damages, you can file in small claims for more, though most airline contracts limit their liability at a certain amount. Past that is where travel insurance comes into play.
Once the plane in in-flight, the flight crew has more legal power, not less. If you make a scene in-flight, or refuse to follow a flight attendant's orders, the pilot has the legal authority to stop at the nearest airport and have you removed.
You can pass on voluntary. If you are selected for invol, you don't get to say "no." That's the whole point of invol.
An airline can stop asking for volunteers at any point and switch to involuntary. Typically though they will ask for volunteers up until the point where the required cash comp for invol is being approached.
Voluntary denied boarding = Airline credit / free flights / free upgrades. You can negotiate the hell out of this if you want to.
Involuntary denied boarding = Cash or check, on-the-spot. Defined by law. No negotiation. Only done after attempts at volunteers fail.
US Transportation Code defines boarding as ending when the doors to the plane are shut.
Once the outer doors have been closed, boarding is over and the plane is legally an "aircraft in flight" even if it is still on the ground. The plane is still considered "in flight" when it lands, up until the moment when the doors open again.
These are important distinctions under the law.
Unfortunately, most people don't care about airline regulations until the moment where it impacts their travel plans. It seems like it takes a certain level of public outrage to effect change, such as when the massive delays a few years back led into the discussions around the "Traveler's Bill of Rights" back in 2012. Even that died due to lack of action.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3302/text
It's not common, but it happens. I've seen it happen more than once on trans-con flights.
The following statement is included with every airline ticket sold in the US:
That warning is mandated by Federal law since airlines are allowed to overbook. You can hate the practice of overbooking, but no one who buys a ticket can claim they weren't given notice of it unless the airline didn't follow the law.
Seats aren't sold twice. Even non-refundable tickets have value that can be reused on a later flight. It's not like if you miss a flight, the ticket value just disappears. If overbooking were prohibited by law though, that is exactly what would happen. You miss a flight and that's it. You end up buying a new ticket at full cost.
Invol bumps would be getting more than the offer of $800 airline credit. They would be getting cash/check compensation.
Overbooking is 100% legal in both the US and the EU. The issue is in how much passengers pay attention to it. Disclosures are required on all US tickets, but most passengers ignore the disclosure because it's always there.
This paper (from 2004) is a good summary of why overbooking happens and the advantages it provides to the market as whole, but also in how it could do better, especially around mandated compensation.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-79-5-Blanchard.pdf
For passengers who choose to exploit the system, the rewards can be great, but for those who are unaware, the system can be frustrating and seem useless.
Just like credit card churners, there are folks who will purposefully book flights that are likely to be oversold in order to get bumped. Most will go for voluntary bumps because the payout is guaranteed. There is no way to guarantee that you get selected for invol, and if you're a frequent flyer, you'll likely get passed over for an invol (oddly enough, if you are a FF and you volunteer, you usually go to the top of the volunteer list).
During the holidays it is possible to get multiple bumps in the same day and walk away with a solid stack of airline credit and/or free flights.
It is difficult to see what legal argument could be made against United here. At most, there would be the possibility of damages for not making the flight, but that is contractually capped at $1350. He could argue that the cap is not fair, but United would likely counter with the fact that the cap is aligned with invol cash payouts as well as argue that every passenger is offered travel insurance and he chose not to purchase it.
United would likely also argue that the overbooking/oversold warning is included with every ticket as a legal requirement, so there is no way that he could claim to not know that overbooking was a potential, if exceedingly small, risk.
I suspect he would have a better claim against the police officers for excessive force, but that has the issue of going up against the police department.
Now, if he could show that he was selected due to his race or ethnicity or sexuality or another protected class, then he would have a slam-dunk of a case, but that's not likely unless the gate agent didn't follow procedure and made the call on who to bump themselves. As long as it was run through the computer, which ranks passengers into groups based on status and fare type, and then selects from the lowest ranked group, any potential discrimination claim is likely to fail.
Don't kid yourself. This is not something that is unique to United. All US and European airlines do this. It is perfectly legal under the law. Until the law changes, overbooking and bumping will continue to happen. We don't often see cases of invol bumping highlighted because it is 1) rare relative to the number of successful flights and 2) most people who get a check are thrilled to get bonus cash, but it happens every week of every month.
Getting picked as an invol bump is very unlikely.
For reference:
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/...ansportation_statistics/html/table_01_64.html
In 2016 0.09% of all air passengers in the US were bumped. In real numbers that is 552,000 people.
Of that, 46,000 were invol bumps. That works out to 0.007% of passengers were invol.
It was most likely a rest issue thing. If they don't get the mandated legal rest period, then they're not allowed to crew the next flight and it's as if they were never there in the first place.
You only get flight credit if you take a voluntary bump.
Invol is cold hard cash.
Denied boarding language on the ticket is not written by United's lawyers. It is language that is mandated by law.
You can't just dismiss it as unfair T&C or a feature of a contract of adhesion.
Courts tend to follow the law and a notice that is dictated by law will be given a great deal of deference by the court system.
United wasn't "arbitrary and capricious" in how it selected who to bump. It has a defined process in how passengers are selected. He would have to show that United didn't follow that process in how it selected people, which is unlikely since that is done by a computer program.
If anything, he might have a claim against the police officers that responded, but that's not an easy point to litigate.
More accurately, he has a PR victory against United right now. It is difficult to see how he would have a legal claim against United that would result in a "huge legal settlement."
That's why it is invol. The airline has the legal right to do so. It is rare, but it happens.
Delta was fined for mis-classifying invol passenger bumps as voluntary. It wasn't fined for bumping.
The accuracy in reporting (and why airlines always push for voluntary) is because they want to keep their invol numbers as close to zero as possible.
This is the most likely situation. Another crew probably went long for some reason and wouldn't meet rest requirements. Or someone called in sick. So the replacement crew needed to be moved into place.
If you are ordered off as an invol, you are entitled to the cash/check compensation as defined by law. That is not considered volunteering.
If you don't believe that the cash/check offer covers your damages, you can file in small claims for more, though most airline contracts limit their liability at a certain amount. Past that is where travel insurance comes into play.
Once the plane in in-flight, the flight crew has more legal power, not less. If you make a scene in-flight, or refuse to follow a flight attendant's orders, the pilot has the legal authority to stop at the nearest airport and have you removed.
You can pass on voluntary. If you are selected for invol, you don't get to say "no." That's the whole point of invol.
An airline can stop asking for volunteers at any point and switch to involuntary. Typically though they will ask for volunteers up until the point where the required cash comp for invol is being approached.
Voluntary denied boarding = Airline credit / free flights / free upgrades. You can negotiate the hell out of this if you want to.
Involuntary denied boarding = Cash or check, on-the-spot. Defined by law. No negotiation. Only done after attempts at volunteers fail.
US Transportation Code defines boarding as ending when the doors to the plane are shut.
Once the outer doors have been closed, boarding is over and the plane is legally an "aircraft in flight" even if it is still on the ground. The plane is still considered "in flight" when it lands, up until the moment when the doors open again.
These are important distinctions under the law.
RastaMentality
Banned
The major US airlines have been getting some godawful press in the past year. Everybody's gonna need to do some serious quality control.
Corporate overlords that have the authority to order government enforcers to beat civilians into submission.
This is the future of the USA. This video is like time traveling.
old manatee
Banned
lol they are now just dragging United for every shitty thing they've ever done.
2Smashed4U
Banned
Wow, that reddit censorship on the original video certainly did backfire.
Woww
The mod from /r/videos who removed it has been engaging in his own PR shitstorm all day.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Wow, that reddit censorship on the original video certainly did backfire.
Woww
Isn't that from r/jokes?
Edit: never mind, apparently I missed some Reddit drama
Audioboxer
Member
Holy batman, big post! Can you link to anything that says that? I've been pulling my hair out all night trying to solve this goose chase I started myself. Other points you made to me I've either been schooled on by others, or found myself. I now know being picked means "not having a choice", as in it can be forced legally, but I will still stand-by for the airline's sake during this mess on the plane they should just have gone to another passenger when this passenger did not want to comply.
I guess if that is true they can state "denied boarding" is any time up until the doors close? Not just boarding ends after the gates.
I also know you're unlikely to get picked for involuntary, the odds are so low. Chances are in most cases people will snap up the voluntary rewards as it will only ever be a handful of seats at a time (some people will fly on a later flight just to get to go in 1st class!).
https://apnews.com/ae81a66dbc124acbad52e3cf8de9617d
He was the last person, just accept his word of being a doctor and move on and ask someone else!
Simon Belmont
Banned
That exact same post was in r/jokes and I didn't realize how many layers that joke had.
...i thought [removed] was the jokeWow, that reddit censorship on the original video certainly did backfire.
Woww
newtypepilot
Member
LOL wtf everything is United related.
2Smashed4U
Banned
Holy shit, literally every link on the front page of videos is related to United Airlines right now, lmao
This will be an interesting test of the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" theory.
Flying Toaster
Member
This shit just skipped 11 and went to 22.
Captain Zyrain
Member
All of that was very well laid out and explained, thank you.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
United Airlines Board Room: "Well, so long as no one makes a song about it..."
Seriously, there will be an edit of "united breaks guitars" by the end of the day tomorrow.
titiklabingapat
Member
Just checked my Facebook feed and literally every other post is about United. They dun fucked up.
My mom was a gate agent many years ago, from asking her the plane is not officially "boarded" until the door is closed. Flight attendant will confirm all passengers are seated and door is closed then you take off.
Edit : beaten quite well by Syriel.
Spectral Glider
Member
Corporate America ladies and gentleman. Get ready for more of this shit with a pro corporate regime in Washington and in the supreme court. Good thing they bailed the airlines out on our dime though.
Audioboxer
Member
It's not that I don't believe you or the other poster who clearly knows their stuff, it's just about seeing if it is listed on a Gov based site. It would explain why "denied boarding" would extend into butts in seats as the door isn't closed.
To be honest, though, you would expect all of this sorted way before being in the cabin. I never denied that, but that the airlines must somehow be covered to still do bumping in the cabin given its been going on. The poster above has made it doubly clear that this is involuntary bumping, even if the passengers get off the aeroplane like 3 of them did. Your acceptance to get off is not translated into voluntary. You were picked and "didn't have a choice".
I've seen passengers denied boarding even after doors are closed and the aircraft has pushed back from the gate. Crew did additional math and figured out there was a necessary weight restriction so they had to go back to the gate and deplane people. (They deplaned nonrevs and standbys, avoiding a DB situation.) You're not really 100% certain you're on the flight until it's in the air!
sir_kevith
Member
I imagine this is Oscar Munoz coming home from the gala after receiving his award:
http://www.prweek.com/article/14269...oscar-munoz-named-prweek-us-communicator-year
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Damn, you are the false equivalency minister.
100%TrophyMaster
Member
FinaruDensetsu
Member
14 CFR Chapter 2 is generally the federal law which concerns commercial flights. They refer to boarding also as "enplaning" versus "deplaning".
14 CFR Part 217 and 14 CFR Part 241 define an "enplaned passenger" as a passenger who boards a plane at any particular airport.
49 CFR Part 1510 also defines "passenger enplanement" as "a person boarding in the United States in scheduled or nonscheduled service on aircraft in intrastate, interstate, or foreign air transportation".
14 CFR Part 158 defines it as essentially the same.
Under federal law, this passenger would be considered "boarded" or "enplaned".
It is true that the plane is considered "in flight" when the doors are closed, but this has nothing to do with whether the passenger was already "boarded" or not.
This is a bit different than what we are talking about though. Airlines have virtually an absolute power to remove passengers if it's due to safety reasons. A weight restriction would be a safety matter.
Here the debate about boarding and "denied boarding" has more to do with the contractual aspects.
But again like I said, I bet to the FAA or DOT, United will "officially" claim a reason other than simply denied boarding due to overbooking as the reason they removed this man.
old manatee
Banned
They should let the passengers vote each other off. Get them involved in the process.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
United Training Video...
Amazing.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
It's totally legal, especially if it's prior to boarding the plane. What's grey is once everyone's already seated on the plane.
If I spend $200+ of my to take a flight, I ain't moving a goddamn inch on that plane until I land.
jungomitis
Member
Good post. Thanks for the insight.
MastaKilla
Member
Don't care if this was under their legal authority. I will never fly United ever again.
sir_kevith
Member
Yup the bad PR doesn't go away even if what they did was legal.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Same here. Can't stand shit like this. Especially so 4 of their crew could deadhead
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I was wondering about this point. I'm glad you did your homework.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
False equivalency minister indeed
I've flown UA for the first time last year to Japan and it was honestly the worst flight I've ever been to. They had an issue with their entertainment equipment (the in-seat TVs) which delayed the flight for around 2 hours. My TV was stuck on a bootloop, so I couldn't do anything and was so bored for 12 hours.
I later found out they almost canceled the flight altogether just because some TVs weren't working...it would have ruined my Japan trip.
Thankfully I flew ANA returning home.
I'm not flying UA ever again.
I later found out they almost canceled the flight altogether just because some TVs weren't working...it would have ruined my Japan trip.
Thankfully I flew ANA returning home.
I'm not flying UA ever again.
NeOak
Member
It would be pretty interesting to see what happens if this goes to trail. Personally I think United would win but who knows. They would be insane to even try, but it's United...
MultiCore
Member
The good news is, with all these combative passengers self-selecting themselves from flying with United in the future, it's far less likely that you'll witness a similar situation on United going forward.
The bad news is, if any other airline needs to bump people, the populace is being prepared to be as uncooperative as possible.
The bad news is, if any other airline needs to bump people, the populace is being prepared to be as uncooperative as possible.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Since the US Transportation code was raised earlier, which I take to mean the U.S. Code section on Transportation, 49 USC Section 42301(i)(3)(A) would seem to contradict the earlier statement that passengers are considered "boarded" only when the aircraft doors have been closed.
The section states in part:
"awaiting takeoff after the aircraft doors have been closed or after passengers have been boarded if the passengers have not been advised they are free to deplane"
If aircraft doors closing and passengers boarded were one and the same, the code would not have treated the two as two separate events. The language of "or after passengers have been boarded..." would imply that a passenger can be considered "boarded" prior to the closing of the aircraft doors.
The section states in part:
"awaiting takeoff after the aircraft doors have been closed or after passengers have been boarded if the passengers have not been advised they are free to deplane"
If aircraft doors closing and passengers boarded were one and the same, the code would not have treated the two as two separate events. The language of "or after passengers have been boarded..." would imply that a passenger can be considered "boarded" prior to the closing of the aircraft doors.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
God damn never seen anything like this before. I've been in an overbook many times flying to work on a Monday, I'd take the cash on occasions but can never imagine you'd get beat up by the airline.
You think you've seen it all.
WTF 😐
You think you've seen it all.
WTF 😐
- Status