Videos showing a man being violently removed from a United Airlines flight have provoked an outcry on social media.
The footage taken inside the airliner shows a man being violently pulled out of his seat and dragged down the aisle as passengers prepared to take off from Chicago to Louisville on Sunday evening.
The airline in question - United - has tweeted an apology for what happened and says it is investigating.
One 50-second clip of the incident on Twitter was re-tweeted 16,000 times since it was posted that day.
Jayse D Anspach, who posted the footage tweeted: "#United overbooked and wanted four of us to volunteer to give up our seats for personnel that needed to be at work the next day."
"No one volunteered, so United decided to choose for us. They chose an Asian doctor and his wife."
"The doctor needed to work at the hospital the next day, so he refused to volunteer," Mr Anspach added.
"Ten minutes later, the doctor runs back into the plane with a bloody face, clings to a post in the back, chanting, "I need to go home."
Another passenger Audra D. Bridges, posted a video of the incident on Facebook that has been viewed over 400,000 times.
She wrote: "Please share this video. We are on this flight. United airlines overbooked the flight."
"They randomly selected people to kick off so their standby crew could have a seat.
"This man is a doctor and has to be at the hospital in the morning," she added.
"He did not want to get off. We are all shaky and so disgusted."

In a statement United airlines told the BBC: "Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked."
"After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate," the airline added.
The chief executive of United, Oscar Munoz, has since made a statement on Twitter: "This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologise for having to re-accommodate these customers."
"Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened.
"We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve the situation," he added.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a major settlement. The person needs to immediately call reporters.

1. He has a contracted ticket.
2. At worst he is trespassing. Police have the ability to remove the passenger. Airline employees are committing battery in attempting to do so.

United...color me shocked. I actively avoid that hole.

 reds8n wrote:
footage leaked from United's training videos :

http://imgur.com/hTDGHhb

 d-usa wrote:
The airline can involuntarily bump anyone they want, it's in the contract of carriage. You are entitled to compensation by law if they do. If you refuse to leave, they can have the police assist you with leaving. At that point you are interfering with the operation of an aircraft and could face federal charges.

The time to fight and argue with the airline is NEVER while you are physically on the airplane. It's a no-win situation.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to add what is seemingly missing on the BBC article. The financial compensation they would give next to another flight went up to $800. You would think they could have offered a little more to see if people wanted to go off after.

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to add what is seemingly missing on the BBC article. The financial compensation they would give next to another flight went up to $800. You would think they could have offered a little more to see if people wanted to go off after.

Why offer more when $800 guarantees you seats?

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to add what is seemingly missing on the BBC article. The financial compensation they would give next to another flight went up to $800. You would think they could have offered a little more to see if people wanted to go off after.

Why offer more when $800 guarantees you seats?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to add what is seemingly missing on the BBC article. The financial compensation they would give next to another flight went up to $800. You would think they could have offered a little more to see if people wanted to go off after.

Why offer more when $800 guarantees you seats?

Well I probably should have phrased that better. I meant why not offer more if the alternative was to physically drag a person out of the plane in front of all the passengers. They might have been technically correct (the best kind ofc) but not according to society going by the backlash/slow news day.

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to add what is seemingly missing on the BBC article. The financial compensation they would give next to another flight went up to $800. You would think they could have offered a little more to see if people wanted to go off after.

Why offer more when $800 guarantees you seats?

Well I probably should have phrased that better. I meant why not offer more if the alternative was to physically drag a person out of the plane in front of all the passengers. They might have been technically correct (the best kind ofc) but not according to society going by the backlash/slow news day.

It will be old news by Friday, and people will still book tickets on United as long as they are the cheapest, are frequent fliers, or are booked via corporate. Remember the leggings outrage on the airplane? Neither do most other people.

 Frazzled wrote:
United was completely correct about that.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
United was completely correct about that.

The leggings?

Yeah, most stories left out the important detail about them flying on employee tickets with a more strict dress code.

clings to a post in the back, chanting, "I need to go home."

 d-usa wrote:
, or are booked via corporate.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They shouldn't be overbooking the plane. Are they hoping to sell more tickets than they have seats in the hope some cancel?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They shouldn't be overbooking the plane. Are they hoping to sell more tickets than they have seats in the hope some cancel?

Afaik overbooking is standard practice, as in many cases not everyone will show up and this prevents empty seats which they hate. But then you get things like this in which everybody shows up and someone needs to get left behind.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They shouldn't be overbooking the plane. Are they hoping to sell more tickets than they have seats in the hope some cancel?

Afaik overbooking is standard practice, as in many cases not everyone will show up and this prevents empty seats which they hate. But then you get things like this in which everybody shows up and someone needs to get left behind.

 CptJake wrote:

In this particular case United wanted/needed 4 seats for employees they wanted/needed at the destination airport to crew another flight. Basically they bumped folks, including the guy in this story so they could transport their own folks.

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of flights, evidently Kronk has been visiting Turkey.

https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2017/turkish-airlines-crew-help-deliver-baby


HAHAHA

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

In this particular case United wanted/needed 4 seats for employees they wanted/needed at the destination airport to crew another flight. Basically they bumped folks, including the guy in this story so they could transport their own folks.

Oooh! That's a whole new level of BS!

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

In this particular case United wanted/needed 4 seats for employees they wanted/needed at the destination airport to crew another flight. Basically they bumped folks, including the guy in this story so they could transport their own folks.

Oooh! That's a whole new level of BS!

 d-usa wrote:


Well, they could bump 4 people here, or tell a plane full of people at the other airport that they are not going to fly at all.

 d-usa wrote:


When you are on that metal tube of suffering, the crew has a lot of legal power and kicking you off the plane is one of them. The proper procedure to deal with that fethery is to collect your compensation (cash, none of that certificate, miles, whatever bs), get re-booked, and shame them on social media to see if you can get anything else out of it. When you start interfering it only goes downhill for you.

 Peregrine wrote:
Rule #1 of flying: the pilot is god. God may decide for any reason that you are not welcome on the plane, and that is the end of the discussion. Fairness, how important it is that you get to your destination, none of those things matter. God has spoken, and so it shall be. If you refuse to leave you forfeit the right to complain when the police remove you.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I thought you were god, Peregrine, or are you trying to say that you are a pilot?

 whembly wrote:
What peregrine said.

That's the short of it...

... I'm not sure that $800 is "the max by law" in compensation... maybe monetarily... but I'm sure they could offer other things to recompense.

I'd take the $800 + free ticket... that's a good start for a new 40k army!

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Rule #1 of flying: the pilot is god. God may decide for any reason that you are not welcome on the plane, and that is the end of the discussion. Fairness, how important it is that you get to your destination, none of those things matter. God has spoken, and so it shall be. If you refuse to leave you forfeit the right to complain when the police remove you.

I thought you were god, Peregrine, or are you trying to say that you are a pilot?

 Ahtman wrote:
I was under the impression it was $800 + hotel room + flight out the next day.

Already seeing some in other places playing up the racial element saying if he hadn't been Asian it would never had happened so now we get that excitement to go with all this as well.

"The system in place enables us to take a look at how long a customer will need to stay at an airport, for example," Hobart said. "We also keep unaccompanied minors, we try to keep families together, we take a lot of factors into consideration."

United employees explained the situation to the man several times, but he still refused, Hobart said. Authorities came in and forcibly removed him from the plane.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was under the impression it was $800 + hotel room + flight out the next day.

Already seeing some in other places playing up the racial element saying if he hadn't been Asian it would never had happened so now we get that excitement to go with all this as well.

 Peregrine wrote:
Rule #1 of flying: the pilot is god. God may decide for any reason that you are not welcome on the plane, and that is the end of the discussion. Fairness, how important it is that you get to your destination, none of those things matter. God has spoken, and so it shall be. If you refuse to leave you forfeit the right to complain when the police remove you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Rule #1 of flying: the pilot is god. God may decide for any reason that you are not welcome on the plane, and that is the end of the discussion. Fairness, how important it is that you get to your destination, none of those things matter. God has spoken, and so it shall be. If you refuse to leave you forfeit the right to complain when the police remove you.

Bollocks to that.

As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

Try to force me off the flight for no reason other than 'our staff want your seat' and there's going to be issues.

Hope this airline enjoy their lawsuit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

Try to force me off the flight for no reason other than 'our staff want your seat' and there's going to be issues.

Hope this airline enjoy their lawsuit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So because pilots are having a wee ego-spank, it's ok to physically drag passengers around? Because the airline wants to shift non-paying staff somewhere else?

Bollocks that's on the small print.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Rule #1 of flying: the pilot is god. God may decide for any reason that you are not welcome on the plane, and that is the end of the discussion. Fairness, how important it is that you get to your destination, none of those things matter. God has spoken, and so it shall be. If you refuse to leave you forfeit the right to complain when the police remove you.

Bollocks to that.

As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

Try to force me off the flight for no reason other than 'our staff want your seat' and there's going to be issues.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So because pilots are having a wee ego-spank, it's ok to physically drag passengers around? Because the airline wants to shift non-paying staff somewhere else?

Bollocks that's on the small print.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So because pilots are having a wee ego-spank, it's ok to physically drag passengers around? Because the airline wants to shift non-paying staff somewhere else?

Bollocks that's on the small print.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

Nope. As the pilot I am God, at least in My domain of that particular aircraft. My word is absolute law*, if I say you get off My plane then you are removed. If I say the plane doesn't fly then it stays right where it is until I am satisfied. Don't like it? Too damn bad. Because the other side of that power is that I have full responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

*Quite literally so, in many cases. In an emergency, where emergency is defined as "I think there is one", I have permission to break any law or FAA regulation if I consider it necessary to ensure the safe conclusion of the flight.

Try to force me off the flight for no reason other than 'our staff want your seat' and there's going to be issues.

You are correct, there are going to be issues when airport security comes to remove you. You may end up in jail if you insist on continuing to resist the decision to remove you.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that I need a reason to remove you. I don't. My word is law. The airline may be required to compensate you (with the amount of compensation set by law), depending on the circumstances, but once the decision to remove you is made you're off the plane.

Hope this airline enjoy their lawsuit.

While they'll probably settle out of court to save on lawyer fees and bad PR, the lawsuit is a joke. The airline has clear legal authority to remove a passenger, and resisting airport security means accepting the painful consequences.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So because pilots are having a wee ego-spank, it's ok to physically drag passengers around? Because the airline wants to shift non-paying staff somewhere else?

Bollocks that's on the small print.

What do you think is going to happen when you resist the police? Especially airport security, of all police? The passenger was given the opportunity to obey the law and leave voluntarily. Only when they refuse to obey the police did the police use force to remove the passenger.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a paying passenger, you're their solely to get me from A-B as agreed and paid for.

You do know that as a paying passenger part of your payment is an agreement to the rules and regulations of both the company as well as State and Federal Law. Just saying "I bought a ticket" is like telling a cop you pay his salary because you pay taxes when he pulls you over for speeding. I'm not saying the situation was well handled but the idea that one buying a ticket gives them carte blanche doesn't really work either.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How is it a joke?

Passenger is asked to give up his seat.

Passenger declines, explaining he's a Doctor, and must be on that flight to make his next appointments.

Airline has him physically assaulted, all on film, including images of the guy bleeding.

Do remind to never your unfriendly skies, yeah? I don't even know how you can begin to defend that behaviour.

And no 'I am God, honest guy, I'm ever so special' doesn't cut it.

I really hope that passenger doesn't settle out of court,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How is it a joke?

Step 3:Passenger and all other passengersis asked to volunteer togive up his seat.

Step 4: Passenger declines, explaining he's a Doctor, and must be on that flight to make his next appointments.

Airline has him physically assaulted, all on film, including images of the guy bleeding.

Do remind to never your unfriendly skies, yeah? I don't even know how you can begin to defend that behaviour.

And no 'I am God, honest guy, I'm ever so special' doesn't cut it.

I really hope that passenger doesn't settle out of court,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Passenger declines, explaining he's a Doctor, and must be on that flight to make his next appointments.

Airline has him physically assaulted, all on film, including images of the guy bleeding.

And no 'I am God, honest guy, I'm ever so special' doesn't cut it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Further thoughts on those T&C's (see, professionally I'm an Investigator with an Inquisitorial Mandate, so I'm used to reading contracts and that)....

First is above - do the T&C's have a glossary of terms?

If not, a seated passenger being removed is not stopping them from Boarding (see the dictionary definition).

And as for overbooking - domthe T&C's define Passenger? Because he was forced to give up his seat for Staff - those are two different things, no?

 Frazzled wrote:
Well in the discovery phase it will be interesting to see why an ethnic minority was picked out.

United will settle this within 48 hours. The CEO is now getting flack over his stupid ass tweet.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Looking pretty boned on the Contract of Carriage....

Overbooking onlyapplies to Passengers...

UA define Passengers as...any person except members of the crew (emphasis mine) carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried on the aircraft with the consent of the carrier.

Contact of Carriage doesn't seem to allow UA to hoy passengers off to make space for crew. A term which itself isn't defined in the T&C's.

So not only had they allowed this poor sod to board already, thus removing their right to refuse boarding (boarding not being defined, you'd go with the generally accepted term - and that's not 'already seated on the plane'), but their own Contract doesn't allow to remove passengers in favour of crew.

Whoopsadaisy...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Looking pretty boned on the Contract of Carriage....

Overbooking onlyapplies to Passengers...

UA define Passengers as...any person except members of the crew (emphasis mine) carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried on the aircraft with the consent of the carrier.

Contact of Carriage doesn't seem to allow UA to hoy passengers off to make space for crew. A term which itself isn't defined in the T&C's.

So not only had they allowed this poor sod to board already, thus removing their right to refuse boarding (boarding not being defined, you'd go with the generally accepted term - and that's not 'already seated on the plane'), but their own Contract doesn't allow to remove passengers in favour of crew.

Whoopsadaisy...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. But 'they racially discriminated against me' (even though the chaps ethnicity may have had sod all to do with it) is going to be squeaky bum time for any company, no?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. But 'they racially discriminated against me' (even though the chaps ethnicity may have had sod all to do with it) is going to be squeaky bum time for any company, no?

 Peregrine wrote:

Perhaps, if you can prove it*. But that's something to worry about once you have left the plane. "THIS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" is not going to keep you on the plane, just like "IM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN YOU CAN'T DO THIS" won't get you out of a speeding ticket.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well in the discovery phase it will be interesting to see why an ethnic minority was picked out.

Hypothetical answer:

We looked at the itinerary of all passengers: we were able to re-book this passenger to get him to his destination with the shortest delay out of all the passengers on that plane. Deboarding anyone other than those four passengers would have resulted in longer delays for the passengers that would have been picked. In compliance with our policies, and the contract the passenger agreed to, he was picked because he was not a frequent flier, on the cheapest fare, and our ability to get him to his destination with only a minimal delay. {/quote]

*and how many other passengers were on the flight?
*how many had Asian names?
*Why did your group consist at least half from people with Asian sounding names?

United will settle this within 48 hours. The CEO is now getting flack over his stupid ass tweet.

Probably. But the public is stupid and it's often better to settle an issue where you did nothing wrong just to get people to shut up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Looking pretty boned on the Contract of Carriage....

Overbooking onlyapplies to Passengers...

UA define Passengers as...any person except members of the crew (emphasis mine) carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried on the aircraft with the consent of the carrier.

Contact of Carriage doesn't seem to allow UA to hoy passengers off to make space for crew. A term which itself isn't defined in the T&C's.

So not only had they allowed this poor sod to board already, thus removing their right to refuse boarding (boarding not being defined, you'd go with the generally accepted term - and that's not 'already seated on the plane'), but their own Contract doesn't allow to remove passengers in favour of crew.

Whoopsadaisy...

Again, none of this matters. The pilot's word is law, period. If the pilot (whether on their own initiative or approving a request made by their employer) says "this person is getting off the plane" then that's the end of the discussion. The person is leaving, whether they leave voluntarily or are physically removed by the police. The passenger may be entitled to compensation for being moved to a different flight, and may be able to sue the airline for breach of contract or similar, but they are getting off the plane. No amount of "but you can't do this to me" or "I'm a really important person with really important places to be" will change this fact. And if you're dumb enough to resist the police in the process, well, you get what you ask for.

 d-usa wrote:
The issue is that he failed to comply with a legal order by the police and physically resisted them when they enforced their order.

United overbooked, United told him to get off the plane. That's where their responsibility ends.

The doctor is 100% responsible for his actions once the police got involved and for the results of his refusal to comply with their instructions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Looking pretty boned on the Contract of Carriage....

Overbooking onlyapplies to Passengers...

UA define Passengers as...any person except members of the crew (emphasis mine) carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried on the aircraft with the consent of the carrier.

Contact of Carriage doesn't seem to allow UA to hoy passengers off to make space for crew. A term which itself isn't defined in the T&C's.

So not only had they allowed this poor sod to board already, thus removing their right to refuse boarding (boarding not being defined, you'd go with the generally accepted term - and that's not 'already seated on the plane'), but their own Contract doesn't allow to remove passengers in favour of crew.

Whoopsadaisy...

Again, none of this matters. The pilot's word is law, period. If the pilot (whether on their own initiative or approving a request made by their employer) says "this person is getting off the plane" then that's the end of the discussion. The person is leaving, whether they leave voluntarily or are physically removed by the police. The passenger may be entitled to compensation for being moved to a different flight, and may be able to sue the airline for breach of contract or similar, but they are getting off the plane. No amount of "but you can't do this to me" or "I'm a really important person with really important places to be" will change this fact. And if you're dumb enough to resist the police in the process, well, you get what you ask for.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. But 'they racially discriminated against me' (even though the chaps ethnicity may have had sod all to do with it) is going to be squeaky bum time for any company, no?

Perhaps, if you can prove it*. But that's something to worry about once you have left the plane. "THIS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" is not going to keep you on the plane, just like "IM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN YOU CAN'T DO THIS" won't get you out of a speeding ticket.

*You almost certainly can't, but you might be able to win in the court of public opinion and get an out of court settlement even if your case has no legal merits.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Would it make any difference if they were not in fact Police, but Airline Security officers? I'm hearing they wernt actually police.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Perhaps, if you can prove it*. But that's something to worry about once you have left the plane. "THIS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" is not going to keep you on the plane, just like "IM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN YOU CAN'T DO THIS" won't get you out of a speeding ticket.

I was thinking that the "you can't deny me boarding after I've already boarded" might be an airline version of the sovereign citizen "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" shenanigans.

 d-usa wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Would it make any difference if they were not in fact Police, but Airline Security officers? I'm hearing they wernt actually police.

Airport Police, as far as I know.

No idea how that particular airport is set up though.

I do know that even airport rent-a-cops would outrank the TSA in actual matters of authority, so there is that

 Frazzled wrote:
Airlines says it is now reaching out to the person to resolve the situation.

Mmm settlement.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Article I read on CNN said the guy who resisted told them he was a doctor and needed to get back due to patients. They should have found somebody else. Handled poorly and was very disappointing to read. The amount of physical abuse he went through is NOT okay, just for refusing to give up his seat. Again; doctor with patients. Not just random guy who would lose a few hours out of a vacation. It was a guy who had legitimate people to take care of. Honestly, seeing how my company does medical work for the US military, and having cancelled flights, you tell the airline to GET you there. Not tomorrow, but NOW!! I can sympathize with the guy. He had pressing patients and didn't wanna turn them away to reschedule. Now, with the abuse he went through, even MORE patients are gonna be on hold. Hope they get to join the impending lawsuit against United.

 jhe90 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Article I read on CNN said the guy who resisted told them he was a doctor and needed to get back due to patients. They should have found somebody else. Handled poorly and was very disappointing to read. The amount of physical abuse he went through is NOT okay, just for refusing to give up his seat. Again; doctor with patients. Not just random guy who would lose a few hours out of a vacation. It was a guy who had legitimate people to take care of. Honestly, seeing how my company does medical work for the US military, and having cancelled flights, you tell the airline to GET you there. Not tomorrow, but NOW!! I can sympathize with the guy. He had pressing patients and didn't wanna turn them away to reschedule. Now, with the abuse he went through, even MORE patients are gonna be on hold. Hope they get to join the impending lawsuit against United.

Yeah a simple proof of his medical ID or such should of put him in the clear.
And given its medical work for Military... Oh id expect that that be handles with clear high priority.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Article I read on CNN said the guy who resisted told them he was a doctor and needed to get back due to patients. They should have found somebody else. Handled poorly and was very disappointing to read. The amount of physical abuse he went through is NOT okay, just for refusing to give up his seat. Again; doctor with patients. Not just random guy who would lose a few hours out of a vacation. It was a guy who had legitimate people to take care of. Honestly, seeing how my company does medical work for the US military, and having cancelled flights, you tell the airline to GET you there. Not tomorrow, but NOW!! I can sympathize with the guy. He had pressing patients and didn't wanna turn them away to reschedule. Now, with the abuse he went through, even MORE patients are gonna be on hold. Hope they get to join the impending lawsuit against United.

Yeah a simple proof of his medical ID or such should of put him in the clear.
And given its medical work for Military... Oh id expect that that be handles with clear high priority.

Well, my company does medical work for the military. Not sure about this guy. But yeah, if he has proof he isn't talking out of his ass about being a doctor? United is screwed. And rightfully so. You DONT screw with medical professionals.

 d-usa wrote:
There are plenty of doctors to cover for him if he's late getting back.

"Do you know who I am" shouldn't be part of any metric that decides who gets bumped.

 Ahtman wrote:
It wasn't one guy that was singled out there were others that had to disembark it is just that he was the only one that decided to resist police. It is hard to pretend that it was racially motivated against an individual without knowing what the ethnicity of the other passengers were that decided not to fight the airport police.

This seems more like one of those times where people want to get emotional and throw fits but the facts don't really line up with that. Overbooking is not a new practice, being bumped from a plane is not a new practice, and the results of fighting the police instead of leaving an aircraft shouldn't surprise people either. Instead the myth propagated is that a mean ol' greedy company has security beat up random Asian man for no reason. As far as I can tell the story being used to anger people isn't an accurate one to what happened.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I mean, I wondered if there was any kind of line the Corporate Autocracy fanclub wouldn't cross

 Yodhrin wrote:
"Fight" the police, LOL.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I mean, I wondered if there was any kind of line the Corporate Autocracy fanclub wouldn't cross

This is a ridiculous bit of a false dichotomy, and the rest was a pretty good fantasy about the situation as well. Companies are sometimes right and sometimes wrong but it isn't some homogeneous group where one can just assume either based solely on the fact it is a company. Also, it wasn't the company that physically removed the man after he refused to leave multiple times, it was the police.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
"Fight" the police, LOL.

Ask any barrister or lawyer what one should do on an aircraft when told by state authority to exit the plane and you tell them 'no' repeatedly. Just as breaking and entering doesn't literally require the breaking of material items neither does resisting mean that one has to physically assault police. Just sitting there and refusing to leave the aircraft won't get them go "oh well he really wants to stay I guess we should be ok with it".

 Yodhrin wrote:
I read the accounts of what occurred

 Yodhrin wrote:
And the Corporate Autocracy comment was in reference to the regular band of folk around here who will reliably defend any corporation and the poilice acting on their behalf in any situation, case in point.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Resisting is not "fighting", and if you seriously believe that peacefully refusing to comply with an instruction permits a police officer to beat someone senseless and drag them down an aisle like a sack of fething potatoes, there's no point continuing to discuss this because we don't merely disagree, we live on entirely different planets.

 Frazzled wrote:
A pilot is an employee of the airline. The airline cannot discriminate or violate federal discrimination laws.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To have someone removed you still need a reason

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The amount of physical abuse he went through is NOT okay, just for refusing to give up his seat.

Hope they get to join the impending lawsuit against United.

 stanman wrote:
If they overbook they should kick off the last people to check in at the gate, especially if they were late boarding. Nothing sucks more than the plane having to sit in the gate while some moron is still racing to the terminal. If you care about flying get there early so everyone is on time.

Also the airline shouldn't overbook they know exactly how many seats they have and it's their own fault if they overbook,

they should never bump customers for employees trying to ride on pass.

Flying has degenerated into a canned sardine bus service in the sky, it's sad really.

 d-usa wrote:
The only real lesson is that if you give an airline money and agree that they can kick you off a plane by finalizing the transaction, then don't refuse to follow that contract and interfere with the operation of the aircraft.

I know contracts for our purchases are like the Terms and Agreements we ignore every time we update our phone, but just because you don't read them doesn't mean that you didn't agree to them. And it looks like a lot of folks never read the fine print on their tickets.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
I seriously question why they let the plane fill up before yanking out four people. If they knew they needed four employee seats, they shouldn't have let anymore people board once they were at capacity minus four.

 firstsilentprophet wrote:
This airline is GUITY of TIME THEFT. TIME THEFT PEOPLE! T.i.m.e T.h.e.f.t

 Peregrine wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If they overbook they should kick off the last people to check in at the gate, especially if they were late boarding. Nothing sucks more than the plane having to sit in the gate while some moron is still racing to the terminal. If you care about flying get there early so everyone is on time.

This is a fair point in some cases, but let's not forget that many of these people running to the gate at the last second are doing it because their connecting flight arrived late.

Flying has degenerated into a canned sardine bus service in the sky, it's sad really.

I suppose you'd also like to go back to the obscenely expensive ticket prices of those over-romanticized days? Or do you want to keep the price benefits of bus service?

 Peregrine wrote:

 firstsilentprophet wrote:
This airline is GUITY of TIME THEFT. TIME THEFT PEOPLE! T.i.m.e T.h.e.f.t

No, they're "guilty" of following the procedures that you agreed to when you bought the ticket. Don't like the possibility of being bumped in exchange for cash? Don't buy an airline ticket.

 stanman wrote:
Sucks to be them, they should have booked a non-stop flight. They knew the risks when they booked a flight with a layover, why should everyone else have to wait on them?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hadn't prevented him boarding.

Tried to remove him in favour of staff. Neither allowed under their contract of Carriage..

 stanman wrote:
If they overbook they should kick off the last people to check in at the gate, especially if they were late boarding. Nothing sucks more than the plane having to sit in the gate while some moron is still racing to the terminal. If you care about flying get there early so everyone is on time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So here, we look to the common knowledge meaning of boarding - the act of getting on the plane.

As for the second bit, I cite UA's Contract of Carriage definition of the term Passenger (which is used with a Capital P throughout). It specifically states crew (small C, no specific definition) are not passengers.

 TheWaspinator wrote:

I know it sucks being bumped, but it's O'hare to Staniford. There's about 9 flights a day there. The guy would have been delayed a few hours and the crew that replaced the passengers were there to ensure another few dozen people weren't delayed a few hours.

 Ahtman wrote:
Pretending layman terms work in specialized situations, say the law, piloting, or medicine, is a pretty poor defense that won't stand up to scrutiny as most specializations have their own parlance. MDG seems to be getting caught up in what is at best a semantic argument and at worst just pure baloney.

 Peregrine wrote:


Incorrect. "Crew" in this context refers to the crew of that particular flight, with specific legal obligations when acting in that role. The UA employees were traveling as passengers on this flight, and were going to be crew on some other flight. They're only "crew" in the informal sense of their normal job description, as opposed to customer service employees or whatever.

Herzlos wrote:
But where is that defined?

Herzlos wrote:
If that were the case, then you'd need to agree that the layman is then incapable of understanding the fine print, thus can't actually form the agreement and that it's null and void.
The onus on the fine print is to make it clear to the people you're expecting to agree to it, unless you want every person to have to consult a lawyer before booking or buying anything.

Herzlos wrote:
Why not put the crew on the next flight with space then, if it's likely under 3 hours away?

 sebster wrote:
It's more than a bit reductionist to say that something is in the terms of a boarding pass, therefore passengers just have to accept it.

 sebster wrote:
And because each person can only make decisions about their own travel, what is a person to do if they don't agree to a term?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So here, we look to the common knowledge meaning of boarding - the act of getting on the plane.

No we don't. We look to the definition used in aviation law, in which seats are not final until the plane departs. Unless you'd like to provide a citation otherwise, from an aviation-specific legal source, not just your "common knowledge" assumptions?

As for the second bit, I cite UA's Contract of Carriage definition of the term Passenger (which is used with a Capital P throughout). It specifically states crew (small C, no specific definition) are not passengers.

Incorrect. "Crew" in this context refers to the crew of that particular flight, with specific legal obligations when acting in that role. The UA employees were traveling as passengers on this flight, and were going to be crew on some other flight. They're only "crew" in the informal sense of their normal job description, as opposed to customer service employees or whatever.

To give a counter example airline pilots will often travel in a spare seat in the cockpit. Even though they have no duties on that specific flight they, in that context, are legally considered part of the crew and subject to FAA regulations as such. This was NOT the case with the people that UA was bumping other passengers to carry, they were taking normal seats and treated as any other passengers.

Contract of Carriage Defintion wrote:Passenger means any person, except members of the crew, carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the carrier

Same document wrote:G) All of UA's flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA's inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA's obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can you show me where crew is defined in the Contract of Carriage? No. No you can't. Because it's not defined. Employees are crew, yes?

Crew cannot therefore be Passangers. Ergo, Passengers cannot be forced to make way for crew seating.

One common definition of crew wrote:1.a group of people who work on and operate a ship, aircraft, etc.

"he was one of nine members of the crew killed when the plane went down"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unless otherwise defined with the contract, you'd naturally go with the most common understanding of a given word.

The crew were being shuttled, by their employer, to their place of work. At their employer's expense.

One common definition of crew wrote:1.a group of people who work on and operate a ship, aircraft, etc.

If there's an FAA glossary, one would expect this contract to refer to it - I've not seen that it does (could do though, I've not read the entire document, just the bits pertinent to this discussion)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If they can't give me a contractually valid reason to give up my seat for a non-paying passenger, I'll argue my case there and then, recording it where possible (not on my iPad for instance, because that seems fuel to the fire. Perhaps a Dictaphone type thing, as those so far as I'm aware don't have to be switched off?)

The nitpicking is absolutely relevant, because UA tried to remove the passenger under their Contract of Carriage - and I'm arguing that due to a lack of specifically defined terms, no breach had occurred, and no basis for removal or refused boarding actually arose.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And what reason does this egotistical 'god' have?

Thank you for the FAA Definition. Though to really split hairs (this is what I do for a living) I note it says 'an aircraft, not the aircraft - yes this one is totally clutching at straws, but it does suggest any aircrew flying at any time would be defined as crew.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But as soon as they try to arrest me or unfairly waylay me, they better read me my rights and tell me what it is I'm being arrested on suspicion of.

They can't just nick me.

And I'm fairly sure that a Police Officer in the above scenario is more than simply a henchman for the carrier - and if I argue my case to the police officer, they will have the power to choose whether or not to remove me, no?

And a general aside - I was under the impression that airports have a weird sovereign status thing (though that is based on that Tom Hanks film)?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh the Police are welcome to chat to me whenever and about anything.

But as soon as they try to arrest me or unfairly waylay me, they better read me my rights and tell me what it is I'm being arrested on suspicion of.

They can't just nick me.

And I'm fairly sure that a Police Officer in the above scenario is more than simply a henchman for the carrier - and if I argue my case to the police officer, they will have the power to choose whether or not to remove me, no?

And a general aside - I was under the impression that airports have a weird sovereign status thing (though that is based on that Tom Hanks film)?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Must be differences between UK and US law - here in the UK, they can't just lift me without giving a reason. Now they don't have to give that reason to anyone else, just me.

I thought Airports didn't count as part of a country or something?

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it's how contracts work. If you're stupid enough to agree to a contract for a major purchase without bothering to read what you're agreeing to then you have only yourself to blame if you don't like the details of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

The basis for removal is "because God said so". Everything after that is only relevant to a potential future lawsuit, after the passenger has been removed from the aircraft.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't know how long the UA T&C are, or at what point they are provided (on booking? check-in?), but do you really expect everyone to have read them?

Herzlos wrote:
Was the pilot actually involved in this, beyond having authority over the plane in which it happened?

Herzlos wrote:
A good lawyer can easily argue that those 4 crew were in fact, crew, and that the T&C didn't allow for the Passenger to be evicted on their behalf.

Herzlos wrote:
Unreadable contracts have been ruled non-binding in the past though, on the basis that it's not feasible to read them. I'm positive it happened with one of the Apple contracts (iTunes is 56 pages of legaleze).

Thanks for the link to the CoC; it's 79 pages, 37527 words. That'd presumably be at least a days work for a lawyer to read and agree to, and it was updated a few weeks ago so would need to be re-read.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Being employees transported by their employer, I'd be interested to see what their contract of employment has to say about conduct and expectations (if indeed anything). If it has specific instructions, that alone differentiates them from regular Passengers, creating a new situation.

What provision is made for an Airplane! type situation where the flight's crew take ill - are they or are they not expected to fill in, whether officially off the clock or not?

Taking over the flight? Probs completely illegal (though one does wonder if not unheard of. When you gotta go, you gotta go!)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wouldn't settle meself. You may have noticed, I can be quite belligerent, and I'd be keen to set a precedent for this sort of situation (not the assault, the 'get off, we're putting our staff on instead')

 Peregrine wrote:
That is not sufficient. Employees of an airline that are clearly NOT crew often get free travel perks (and have to follow the company's code of conduct while getting free travel), but it would be insane to argue that a random customer service person is considered "crew" on a flight just because they have some "don't make the company look bad" rules to follow.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But as I said, without knowing the in's and out's of the employees and their contract (and good luck to any of us finding that out) it's just conjecture.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wouldn't settle meself. You may have noticed, I can be quite belligerent, and I'd be keen to set a precedent for this sort of situation (not the assault, the 'get off, we're putting our staff on instead')

And the airline would bury you in legal fees until you give up, then quietly amend their CoC to explicitly allow them to bump customers to make room for their own employees. There is exactly zero chance of a lawsuit over this forcing a change in policy.
.

Herzlos wrote:
Also, there were given a special priority due to being an air crew (or no-one would have been kicked off). So by performance, these 4 crew were not "Passengers", or they'd not have been allowed to board.

They are not equivalent though - a staff member getting free travel as a perk is clearly a passenger - they are treated the same as any other passenger except that they didn't pay for the ticket.
A staff member being sent as part of their job is not a passenger. They may be somewhere in between depending on the CoC and whatever else happens.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If they're wearing the uniform, that probably isn't in the airline's favour either. If they expect a higher level of behaviour from their travelling employees, and that they were the uniform unless travelling for pleasure....

 Peregrine wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Also, there were given a special priority due to being an air crew (or no-one would have been kicked off). So by performance, these 4 crew were not "Passengers", or they'd not have been allowed to board.

Err, what? Why would they not be allowed to board? United simply added them to the passenger list, at which point the flight was overbooked and four random people got removed.

They are not equivalent though - a staff member getting free travel as a perk is clearly a passenger - they are treated the same as any other passenger except that they didn't pay for the ticket.
A staff member being sent as part of their job is not a passenger. They may be somewhere in between depending on the CoC and whatever else happens.

Except in this case it IS free travel as a perk. The employees are given access to seats for commuting purposes, they aren't required to travel that way. If you want to live 500 miles from the airport you're operating out of you can take the free travel benefits, if you want to live 5 miles from the airport you can drive your car to work. The situation is no different from any other employer telling you to be at a job site at a particular time, you aren't on the clock while commuting there. You're just self-loading cargo that happens to collect a paycheck from the people who own the plane.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But to say to paying passengers who have presumably (without evidence to the contrary) booked that flight to be over there by that time for their own reasons 'tough, you're not flying today' seems colossally unfair, regardless of whether crew being shifted are actually defined as Passengers by their own Contract of Carriage.

 Frazzled wrote:
There are now rumors circulating that all four passengers "randomly" selected had Asian names. If true, oh man its clobbering time.

Herzlos wrote:
Because if they were normal passengers they'd have been told it was fully booked. They must have been added to the passenger list after the flight had nearly completed boarding.

But it's not; they are being sent to another place to start work. They aren't flying for the fun of it. You can't claim being sent from job site A to job site B by your employer is a perk.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But to say to paying passengers who have presumably (without evidence to the contrary) booked that flight to be over there by that time for their own reasons 'tough, you're not flying today' seems colossally unfair, regardless of whether crew being shifted are actually defined as Passengers by their own Contract of Carriage.

Sure, you can argue that it's poor customer service and the kind of thing that gets people to give their money to your competition, but that's not the question here. The issue is whether it was legal for United to do this, and there are a great many things that are "unfair" or poor business strategies but indisputably legal.

Herzlos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There are now rumors circulating that all four passengers "randomly" selected had Asian names. If true, oh man its clobbering time.

That's the problem with it being "random" - it's entirely possible for it to be fair and random and still pluck out 4 Asian sounding passengers, but without scrutiny it's hard to count as fair. CoC doesn't seem to describe how they randomly determine who to kick off.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a pattern and practice of overbooking, intentionally designing the system to violate their contracts.

In this instance they did not even go to the legally permitted limit of $1,350 and just went with wacking people.

Uh, no. Their contract very clearly permits overbooking, and even describes the process by which overbooking is resolved when they do it. There is no contract violation, only customers who don't read the contract they're agreeing to and feel entitled to a guaranteed seat that they were never promised.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They shouldn't be overbooking the flights in the first place. If they've got the money for the seat then it doesn't matter if the person doesn't turn up. Taking advantage of the fact that often people miss flights as a reason to gamble by selling more tickets than there are seats is just plain greedy and frankly shouldn't be allowed because you're selling product you don't have. Burying reference to being expected to give up a seat in such circumstances in a 50 page contract isn't reasonable (if that is the case).

 Frazzled wrote:
Your reliance on contract law is interesting. This is not a contract dispute and United knows it.

 Peregrine wrote:

And let's not wander off on a complete tangent here, whether it's a perk or an obligation they're still not part of the crew. Not all employees of United are crew, so merely acting as an employee is not sufficient to make you no longer a passenger. They are commuting between jobs, not performing any necessary crew functions aboard that particular flight. From the point of view of the actual crew of that flight the employees are just additional self-loading cargo, and the only difference between them and the other self-loading cargo is that those four are more likely to know how to behave in public.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm not sure many airlines do offer refunds for missed flights - that tends to be covered by one's travel insurance, and even then only in specific, contractually defined situations.

Indeed, I'm not aware of any flight I've ever taken where not showing up allowed for a statutory refund?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is if the contract relies on non-standard terminology and singularly fails to explain those terms, leaving the consumer none the wise as to what is and isn't covered.

Very poor practice that.

 whembly wrote:
UA simply needs to settle this fast AND put on a good PR dog-n-pony show.

Also, I think this is a point that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, ignorance of the law/regulations is NOT a defense.

When you purchase a ticket, you are bound by the contract that it stipulates. I'd bet 99% of the consumers don't even read the fine-print.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
UA simply needs to settle this fast AND put on a good PR dog-n-pony show.

Also, I think this is a point that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, ignorance of the law/regulations is NOT a defense.

When you purchase a ticket, you are bound by the contract that it stipulates. I'd bet 99% of the consumers don't even read the fine-print.

Thats not quite accurate. Contract law is a detailed beast with many assumptions, and frankly doesn't have much t do with the far more lucrative world of tort law which is where this one would be. The victim is not going to argue contract law, but torts and negligence baby.

UAL stock down 4.2% now and falling.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is if the contract relies on non-standard terminology and singularly fails to explain those terms, leaving the consumer none the wise as to what is and isn't covered.

Very poor practice that.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well, it is the airlines fault. Or is it the passenger's fault that United overbooked?

This thread is crazy far from the norm of the public opinion. I haven't seen victim-blaming of this caliber in quite a while.

No wonder United is being raked over the coals, they have the mindset of Peregrine where they believe they did nothing wrong.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
This thread is crazy far from the norm of the public opinion.

I haven't seen victim-blaming of this caliber in quite a while.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
No wonder United is being raked over the coals, they have the mindset of Peregrine where they believe they did nothing wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
No wonder United is being raked over the coals, they have the mindset of Peregrine where they believe they did nothing wrong.

Oh, I acknowledge that United did something wrong. They made the mistake of trying to win the court of public opinion with facts instead of emotions. They should have killed the story as soon as it appeared by apologizing, giving the guy some "now STFU" money, and making some comments about disciplining the people involved. But instead they forgot that the public is a horde of ignorant spoiled children with the attention span of a goldfish, and let this turn into a PR debacle.

 Peregrine wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
No wonder United is being raked over the coals, they have the mindset of Peregrine where they believe they did nothing wrong.

Oh, I acknowledge that United did something wrong. They made the mistake of trying to win the court of public opinion with facts instead of emotions. They should have killed the story as soon as it appeared by apologizing, giving the guy some "now STFU" money, and making some comments about disciplining the people involved. But instead they forgot that the public is a horde of ignorant spoiled children with the attention span of a goldfish, and let this turn into a PR debacle.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They wernt police, they were airport security. Do they have the same jurisdictional powers as actual police?

Nor was their request apparently lawful, or else the authority in question would not be on leave and federal investigation would not be going on. But the Security Officer in question is on leave, and there is a federal investigation going on.

The guy paid of his fare and was seated on the plane, I believe thats past the point of it being unreasonable for him to expect to not reach his destination per his purchase of ticket and contract with airline

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How dare the public expect to be treated like people instead of cattle.

 n0t_u wrote:
Intentionally overbooking is standard practice, it shouldn't be but it's likely done to compensate the lower fares by not missing out on those who don't show. I saw an analogy later about airlines being somewhat like a bakery, they have an amount they can sell during a day and any they have leftover they can't sell later.

 n0t_u wrote:
Intentionally overbooking is standard practice, it shouldn't be but it's likely done to compensate the lower fares by not missing out on those who don't show. I saw an analogy later about airlines being somewhat like a bakery, they have an amount they can sell during a day and any they have leftover they can't sell later.

The dodgy thing about this besides the way the security treated the passengers more, was them bumping 4 people just to transport their own guys. This guy in question was a doctor and claimed he had patients he had to see the next day, that seems somewhat important so they could have looked around a bit more for more to bump or instead figure a better way to send their employees or maybe split their flights instead. It was mentioned they offered lower compensation prior to boarding then the compensation rose later on. As for reputation, I figure this is like mixing slightly more dog gak into the flaming bag they must seem to be already.

 Frazzled wrote:
4. THEN they decided four people needed to go in violation of the agreement they made with those passengers, due to their INTENTIONAL act.

5. They did not offer just and fair compensation.

 n0t_u wrote:
The dodgy thing about this besides the way the security treated the passengers more, was them bumping 4 people just to transport their own guys.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
No wonder United is being raked over the coals, they have the mindset of Peregrine where they believe they did nothing wrong.

Oh, I acknowledge that United did something wrong. They made the mistake of trying to win the court of public opinion with facts instead of emotions. They should have killed the story as soon as it appeared by apologizing, giving the guy some "now STFU" money, and making some comments about disciplining the people involved. But instead they forgot that the public is a horde of ignorant spoiled children with the attention span of a goldfish, and let this turn into a PR debacle.

Uh huh.

How dare the public expect to be treated like people instead of cattle.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Paying for a ticket and expecting transportation is "Entitlement" now?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Paying for a ticket and expecting transportation is "Entitlement" now?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
4. THEN they decided four people needed to go in violation of the agreement they made with those passengers, due to their INTENTIONAL act.

That is a clause in the contract, yes. However, if there is a pattern and practice of intentionally voiding the actual purpose of the contract then a court can reach beyond the terms of the contract.

There is no violation of the agreement, because the agreement includes "we can bump you to a different flight if we need to". The violation was of one entitled passenger's expectation that United would provide him with service that was never promised, simply because he's a Very Important Doctor who shouldn't have to be bound by the terms he agreed to when he bought the ticket if it would be any inconvenience to him.

The service was indeed promised: a certain flight and a certain seat. Consideration was given.

5. They did not offer just and fair compensation.

Wrong. Compensation is not something that is "offered" in this case. If you are bumped involuntarily you get paid, period. The compensation is set by law, and if he had walked off the plane without incident he would have received his money. The issue here is that your definition of fair compensation seems to be "as much money as he wants", not "the compensation specified in the contract he agreed to when he bought the ticket".

They reneged on the essential and fundamental purposes of the contract, else they are committing fraud.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:
The dodgy thing about this besides the way the security treated the passengers more, was them bumping 4 people just to transport their own guys.

There's nothing wrong with that. As mentioned before, the employees in question were not random customer service people traveling on vacation or whatever, they were the crew for later flights on their way to work. If they don't get where they need to be then other flights get delayed, and it potentially turns into a chain reaction of delays and missed connecting flights. The end result is that way more than four people get inconvenienced by the situation.

 Popsghostly wrote:

I don't have time to search, but has it been verified he actually is a doctor? If so, it will make United look worse.

 CptJake wrote:

 Popsghostly wrote:

I don't have time to search, but has it been verified he actually is a doctor? If so, it will make United look worse.

Well, it IS TMZ but....

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/

Spoiler:

The passenger who was savagely removed from United flight 3411 is a medical doctor with a sordid history.
Dr. David Dao was charged in 2005 with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers. Prosecutors claimed Dao fraudulently filled prescriptions for hydocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.
Dr. Dao was also convicted on 6 felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005 was given 5 years probation.
Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex.
In medical board documents ... Dao denied paying for sex, but indicated he accepted sexual favors from an associate in exchange for reducing a debt that associate owed him.
In February, 2005, Dr. Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky. In 2015 the medical board lifted the suspension and allowed him to practice medicine with some restrictions. Last year, the medical board imposed even more restrictions -- now he can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
Interestingly, and relevant to the United incident, one doctor assessing Dao's case said he had interpersonal problems, noting "... he would unilaterally choose to do his own thing."

If accurate, yes he was a doctor, but probably not one you would go to.

 CptJake wrote:

 Popsghostly wrote:

I don't have time to search, but has it been verified he actually is a doctor? If so, it will make United look worse.

Well, it IS TMZ but....

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/

Spoiler:

The passenger who was savagely removed from United flight 3411 is a medical doctor with a sordid history.
Dr. David Dao was charged in 2005 with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers. Prosecutors claimed Dao fraudulently filled prescriptions for hydocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.
Dr. Dao was also convicted on 6 felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005 was given 5 years probation.
Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex.
In medical board documents ... Dao denied paying for sex, but indicated he accepted sexual favors from an associate in exchange for reducing a debt that associate owed him.
In February, 2005, Dr. Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky. In 2015 the medical board lifted the suspension and allowed him to practice medicine with some restrictions. Last year, the medical board imposed even more restrictions -- now he can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
Interestingly, and relevant to the United incident, one doctor assessing Dao's case said he had interpersonal problems, noting "... he would unilaterally choose to do his own thing."

If accurate, yes he was a doctor, but probably not one you would go to.

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the terms for my next flight. Jurisdiction is...Dallas. Dear Dog! not Dallas!

 Popsghostly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the terms for my next flight. Jurisdiction is...Dallas. Dear Dog! not Dallas!

Not sure why United wouldn't choose Cook County (Chicago) since its HQ is there. Maybe due to Continental?

Regardless of the contract terms- the public is the jury here...

 Ahtman wrote:
American Airlines is based in Dallas iirc.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Popsghostly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the terms for my next flight. Jurisdiction is...Dallas. Dear Dog! not Dallas!

Not sure why United wouldn't choose Cook County (Chicago) since its HQ is there. Maybe due to Continental?

Regardless of the contract terms- the public is the jury here...

Southwest flight. I avoid UAL like the Black Death. Kind of hard considering the lock up they have on IAH but Hobby is here to. Southwest will get you there if they have to strap you to the wing.

 d-usa wrote:
If I'm flying by myself I wouldn't be opposed to volunteering if the incentives are right. But sometimes, nobody volunteers.

But this experience will lead to something good:

http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/04/pentagon-awards-contract-united-airlines-forcibly-remove-assad/

 kronk wrote:
I am sitting on my second United flight of the day right this minute. Got the free first class upgrade. Now, with 50% fewer choke holds.

 Frazzled wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Intentionally overbooking is standard practice, it shouldn't be but it's likely done to compensate the lower fares by not missing out on those who don't show. I saw an analogy later about airlines being somewhat like a bakery, they have an amount they can sell during a day and any they have leftover they can't sell later.

Standard practice doesn't mean legal, fair, or equitable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
The dodgy thing about this besides the way the security treated the passengers more, was them bumping 4 people just to transport their own guys.

There's nothing wrong with that. As mentioned before, the employees in question were not random customer service people traveling on vacation or whatever, they were the crew for later flights on their way to work. If they don't get where they need to be then other flights get delayed, and it potentially turns into a chain reaction of delays and missed connecting flights. The end result is that way more than four people get inconvenienced by the situation.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It surprises me that the UA employees didn't just pick a different random "volunteer." I understand why they had to remove people from the over booked flight but they were chosen at random so they didn't have to be those 4 people. I would think if, in response to being told by an attendant that they were selected to lose their seat, the passenger explains to the attendant that he's a doctor and needs to be at work in the hospital the next day that they'd just choose another random person instead of not giving a gak and having him dragged off the plane kicking and screaming.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It surprises me that the UA employees didn't just pick a different random "volunteer." I understand why they had to remove people from the over booked flight but they were chosen at random so they didn't have to be those 4 people. I would think if, in response to being told by an attendant that they were selected to lose their seat, the passenger explains to the attendant that he's a doctor and needs to be at work in the hospital the next day that they'd just choose another random person instead of not giving a gak and having him dragged off the plane kicking and screaming.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It surprises me that the UA employees didn't just pick a different random "volunteer." I understand why they had to remove people from the over booked flight but they were chosen at random so they didn't have to be those 4 people. I would think if, in response to being told by an attendant that they were selected to lose their seat, the passenger explains to the attendant that he's a doctor and needs to be at work in the hospital the next day that they'd just choose another random person instead of not giving a gak and having him dragged off the plane kicking and screaming.

Two reasons:

1) It's unfair to the other passengers. Since nobody volunteered to give up their seat, even with a substantial payment for doing so, presumably everyone on that flight really wanted to get where they were going on time. If you put the airline employees in the position of deciding who "deserves" to keep their seat then whoever has to leave is probably going to be upset that the Very Important Doctor got to whine his way into staying but their need wasn't good enough. Selecting blindly avoids this problem, it's nothing personal, the system just picked your number.

2) Once he refused to comply with crew instructions (again, arguably a federal crime, depending on how strictly you interpret the law) he was a safety risk and needed to be removed. If he's not going to follow instructions in this case how can the crew trust him to comply when the stakes are higher? And remember, failure to comply with crew instructions is itself grounds for removal without any compensation or obligation to get the passenger to their destination by alternative means.

 kronk wrote:
I am sitting on my second United flight of the day right this minute. Got the free first class upgrade. Now, with 50% fewer choke holds.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It surprises me that the UA employees didn't just pick a different random "volunteer." I understand why they had to remove people from the over booked flight but they were chosen at random so they didn't have to be those 4 people. I would think if, in response to being told by an attendant that they were selected to lose their seat, the passenger explains to the attendant that he's a doctor and needs to be at work in the hospital the next day that they'd just choose another random person instead of not giving a gak and having him dragged off the plane kicking and screaming.

Two reasons:

1) It's unfair to the other passengers. Since nobody volunteered to give up their seat, even with a substantial payment for doing so, presumably everyone on that flight really wanted to get where they were going on time. If you put the airline employees in the position of deciding who "deserves" to keep their seat then whoever has to leave is probably going to be upset that the Very Important Doctor got to whine his way into staying but their need wasn't good enough. Selecting blindly avoids this problem, it's nothing personal, the system just picked your number.

2) Once he refused to comply with crew instructions (again, arguably a federal crime, depending on how strictly you interpret the law) he was a safety risk and needed to be removed. If he's not going to follow instructions in this case how can the crew trust him to comply when the stakes are higher? And remember, failure to comply with crew instructions is itself grounds for removal without any compensation or obligation to get the passenger to their destination by alternative means.

From a PR perspective it would have been better if they had made an announcement asking for anyone to volunteer to give up their seat so the doctor could keep his. The guilt trip may have induced somebody else to leave willingly and if not it spreads the blame around. Ultimately UA had the right to remove the 4 passengers but I think the smart move would have been to try harder to get willing participants before dragging people out.

 Darkjim wrote:
Frazz, the BBC have just shown an advert from Southwest that says

"We beat the competition. Not you."

So you should be ok.

ule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

 Frazzled wrote:
The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

Did they initiate the head smacking?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There were 3,765 cases where United involuntary denied boarding to passengers in 2016. Food for thought.

Also, to a post above, it was a Chicago Aviation Department security officer that physically removed the passenger, not United Airline officials, TSA, etc., Chicago Aviation Police were the authorities responsible for dragging the passenger off the plane.

d-usa wrote:Maybe they violated a contract, but he broke federal law and fought with officers and delayed a flight.

Maybe he just forgot to tell the police "this is no crime, it's just a contract dispute". I'm sure he wouldn't have been interfering with a flight and they would have eacorted him back to his seat.

He fethed himself by escalating a "contract dispute" into interference with the operation of an aircraft and fighting with police.

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, when officials tells you to get off the plane, you damn well better get off the plane.

Debates whether that it's right and/or legal can be sussed out at the terminal... but, you are getting off that plane.

Frankly, once that doctor was bumped... that's it. I think that doctor was acting childish at that point.

 Steve steveson wrote:
If he had done that we would have known nothing about this.

What to get staff somewhere for operational reasons? Plan it properly.

Don't go breaching your contract just because the publicity won't do that much damage.

Or one day someone will be bumped which will lose them their job, or in the case of a doctor someone might die.

 djones520 wrote:
It feels weird being on the same page as Peregrine.

 d-usa wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There were 3,765 cases where United involuntary denied boarding to passengers in 2016. Food for thought.

Also, to a post above, it was a Chicago Aviation Department security officer that physically removed the passenger, not United Airline officials, TSA, etc., Chicago Aviation Police were the authorities responsible for dragging the passenger off the plane.

But United told them to kick his ass or something.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Well, as bad as my day was, I can happily say that I can look at myself in the mirror and proudly say "I'm a better person than everybody who sides with United on this one".