Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

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

Of course they know how many seats they have. The point with overbooking is that usually at least some passengers never show up, so their seats would be empty. By overbooking they ensure a full load, at the cost of occasionally having to pay a bit of money to a passenger as compensation for bumping them to a later flight. And it's not like this is some kind of secret, the terms of service you agree to when you buy a ticket clearly state that overbooking is a thing and they may have to change your flight. It's not the airline's fault that people don't read the details of their ticket information before paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket, and then act like they're entitled to something they were never offered.

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

Why not? If the airline is willing to pay the (rather expensive) compensation for removing a passenger to make room for an employee then why shouldn't they? Keep in mind that many of these employees are traveling for work reasons, and delaying an employee can cause chain reaction delays elsewhere because work isn't getting done.

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?

 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.

I wonder just how much time it would take to read all the fine print on every agreement required for all the purchases an average person makes, especially if one has to educate oneself on all the jargon and legalese. It seems like fine print itself is a tool for overclass these days, as almost every collection of fine print has some way of screwing the customer over should the company find it expedient. I would like to see consumer protections against binding yet overly complicated and unintuitive contracts forced upon people for purchases they realistically have to make (for example, to avoid an undue burden such as driving 1,000 miles to see patients the next day).

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.

.

 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.

I'm guessing that the crew were dead heading to Louisville because of a pilot shortage at Staniford Regional probably caused by some sort of cascading weather or equipment failure. In other words, the airline had to rush a reserve crew to Louisville to make sure 90+ passengers wouldn't have their flight cancelled.

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.

As for everyone claiming boarding was done with once he was on the plane, boarding is done with once the door is closed and the aircraft departs the gate.

That said, the doctor will get a pay day to avoid PR and legal fees.

 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.

 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.

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?

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.

Except they weren't.

Hadn't prevented him boarding. Tried to remove him in favour of staff. Neither allowed under their contract of Carriage..

 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?

Because otherwise the airline is required to find another way to deliver the self-loading cargo. It's cheaper to hold a flight at the gate a bit longer than to screw around with rescheduling everything, potentially having to pay out compensation in the process. Just accept that you're cargo, and you will be delivered at the whim of the airline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Again, you're being over-literal with "boarding". Seats are not final until the plane departs from the gate.

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

{citation needed}

I'm looking at their contract of carriage and all I see is rules on what happens if the flight is oversold. I see nothing that limits "oversold" to "non-employee passengers" and does not count seats reserved for employees. Nor do I see anything about non-employee passengers getting priority for seats.

Ah ah ah!

Remember what I said. The Contract of Carriage offers no definition of Boarding. So here, we look to the common knowledge meaning of boarding - the act of getting on the plane. I think you'd have a hard job convincing the Man In The Street that you were still boarding once you were on the aircraft and ensconced upon your seat.

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.

Thus, acting well outside of their own Contract of Carriage in forcing an already seated Passenger off the aircraft to make way for crew.

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.

I don't think the guy has any basis for special treatment as to getting to stay on board after being told to exit but he may have a case for excessive use of force. It also will depend on whether he was resisting the request of police or private security as I keep seeing both tossed about. If it is the police, which many Airports have their own stations, it is one thing but if it is just United private security it is another. As far as I know private security have much less leeway and should have left it to police if it looked like he was going to need to be physically removed. There are conflicting arguments about which was there so it is hard to know what to think about that.

On the contrary.

Any contract which features words with unusual, specific meanings should define said meaning within it's glossary.

So if you've got an Income Replacement Policy, it should define Unemployment - because if they don't, chances are the Insurer will end up paying out for voluntary unemployment - because the common parlance for unemployed means without a job.

That UA's contract of carriage also has a glossary, but has chosen not to define certain terms others are seeking to rely on here, by offering non-Man In The Street meanings shows precisely why contracts often define the meaning of words where the meaning isn't the common understanding.

That boarding isn't defined is one problem. That Passenger is defined, and under that definition UA don't allow themselves to dump passengers in favour of crew is a much bigger problem for them - because that's exactly what they did here.

 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, or taking the 4 seats from the back row or something non-random.

But for them to have been fully boarded *before* realizing that staff need to be on the flight, that takes some amount of incompetence. I'm sure 4 people would have volunteered if they had asked before they'd sardined themselves on.

 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.

 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.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.

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. Booking airline flights is a very long way from the idealised notion of a contract, in which two parties of equal time both review, discuss and then negotiate each clause. It's a ticket. The airline invests in lawyers and market researchers to get the terms just as they want them, and gets all the uglier bits hidden away where the consumers won't notice them. Meanwhile the customer buys the ticket through some discount on-line service, sees a million lines of text in tiny print and presses 'okay'.

Sure, the customer has agreed on one level. But expecting consumers to read through every single line of tiny contract text is never going to happen, so companies know this and exploit it.

Consider how many ticket systems operated in the past, and how many still operate in many places around the world. Carriers would sell tickets up to the number of seats on the plane, and these people would be certain of a seat. On top of that tickets would be sold at a heavy discount, with people understanding they would not be certain of getting a seat. This worked okay, but the discount demanded was very steep, because most people prefer reliability to a discounted flight.

So how come they've accepted the new model then, where no-one is certain they'll be let on the plane? Because this time the risk is hidden. The terms are hidden away, not brought to the consideration of the passenger. If they were, he might go looking for an airline that guaranteed his flight.

It's a business model that relies on getting people to ignore the airline's clauses. No wonder it pisses people off.

 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.

But where is that defined? Whilst they are crew on another aircraft, they were still UA employees traveling as part of their employment.

Herzlos wrote:
But where is that defined?

FAA regulations on aircraft crew. As a general rule, the question "is this person actively performing duties aboard the aircraft, with legal responsibility for their actions as crew?", a test an employee sitting in a normal passenger seat reading a book for the whole flight would not meet.

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.

Most contracts are written so that individual terms are clear, but the document as a whole is onerous enough that no reasonable person would sit down to read it. 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? Ring the airline to negotiate Shop around to all the other airlines offering the same terms?

This is the kind of thing that is either accepted, or managed with collective action/government regulation.

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

Because that might mean a 3-hour delay for the flight the crew was needed for, which then causes a chain reaction of delays and overbookings as passengers miss their connecting flights, the flight that aircraft was going to be used on next gets the same 3-hour delay, etc. It's much easier to just bump some passengers and get the crew where they need to be on schedule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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. Passengers are of course free to rant on social media and try to convict the airline in the court of public opinion, but if you agree that you can be bumped for $X compensation it's absurd to think that you have any legal right to keep your seat. And it's outright insane to think that you can resist the police when they say "get off the plane".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

Here's an idea: don't fly. Airline travel isn't something you have a guaranteed right to. If you don't like the product being offered by the airlines then you're free to decline to purchase it. The airline is not obligated to provide guaranteed seating, just like they aren't obligated to schedule a flight at a particular time that would be most convenient for you.

 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.

Trouble there is, who has told the passengers about that alleged 'aviation law interpretation'. It might mean something different to you, but when you're writing a contract between you and a layman, your definition should be laid out. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter what it means to you. It's what it means to Arnold Blodget, 22c Acacia Avenue, Generiton.

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?

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

.

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

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.

Rule 25 is well long, so I won't copy it out - but do Google UA Contract of Carriage if you fancy nosing through it

 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?

No. I also can't show you where the word "the" is defined. You're going off to the point of absurdity, trying to argue that employees who are not on the clock, not performing any job duties aboard the flight, and not legally responsible for the safe conclusion of the flight are considered "crew". And you're trying to do this in direct contradiction to the fact that, under FAA regulations, they are explicitly not considered crew. I mean really, would you consider a random customer service employee to be "crew" on a flight just because their paycheck has "United Airlines" on it?

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

And the people who were taking those seats are not crew. Period.

Actually that's precisely my point.

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

So 'the' not being defined would be the dictionary definition of 'the'.

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.

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

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)

And all this nitpicking over definitions is barely relevant in the first place. When the crew of an aircraft tell you what to do you obey, no matter what you think. Maybe you sue them in court afterwards if you think you can prove breach of contract (though I doubt your argument is going to convince anyone), maybe you just rant a bunch on social media, but you're still getting off that plane. And if you disobey you should consider yourself very lucky if you aren't arrested and charged with interfering with the crew (a rather serious federal crime) or resisting the police officers that come to remove you. No amount of legal theory is going to change the fact that the pilot is God, and God's word is absolute law at that moment.

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

And the most common understanding in the context of aviation law would be FAA regulations defining what "crew" consists of.

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

They were not, however, getting paid for their time commuting to work. Nor did they have any responsibilities while aboard the flight. Nor did they have any requirement to be on that particular flight, any other means of being at their job assignment at the required time would be acceptable. Your employer paying for your commute to and from work does not mean that you are crew aboard that flight.

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

And none of the four people who took the seats were operating the aircraft at any point during the flight.

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)

Here's some light reading for you, the FAA regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8bf1a53fe41ee17a10b92e97005aa83d&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterI.tpl

Here's the definitions page, if you want the very short version: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8bf1a53fe41ee17a10b92e97005aa83d&mc=true&node=se14.1.1_11&rgn=div8

"Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time."

The four people in question were not performing duties during flight time, they were sitting in their seats doing whatever they wanted. Being an employee of an airline does not make you crew in the legal sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?)

Sure. Feel free to briefly state your case as you leave the aircraft. However, you'll still leave your seat, with the police removing you by force as necessary.

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.

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.

And what reason does this egotistical 'god' have?

I mean, a Police Officer can't arrest or detain someone without good reason. Even under the strictness of martial law, a soldier can't just shoot someone. The Reason Is Everything.

UA set out valid reasons to refuse boarding. Fair enough. In this case, I don't think they've proven they applied. Ergo, this man was removed from the flight for an arbitrary and thus unenforceable reason.

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.

By analogy: if you see the red and blue flashing lights in your mirror it doesn't matter if you think you have done anything to justify being pulled over, the police have told you to pull over. No amount of clever legal reasoning is going to change the fact that you have a choice between obeying their instructions, whether they are right or wrong, or refusing and committing the crime of resisting arrest. Once the immediate situation has been resolved you can state your case in court, but at that moment you are required to obey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Doesn't matter. God's word is absolute law. If God says you are to be removed from God's aircraft then you are leaving the aircraft. If you refuse then you are interfering with the operation of the aircraft, a federal crime, which is itself reason to remove you.

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.

That's an obvious nonsense definition. If assignment to duty aboard any aircraft makes you crew then a pilot sleeping in bed at home would be considered "crew" aboard every aircraft, and legally responsible for the safe operation of all of those flights. And, independent of that very short initial definition, FAA regulations draw a clear line between "crew operating the aircraft" and "people who happen to be employees of the airline". For example, even if you happen to be a pilot you aren't getting into the cockpit unless you have been assigned to fly that particular flight. If you haven't you aren't crew, and you're staying in your seat along with all the other self-loading cargo.

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:
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.

Actually they can do exactly that. You can, at some later point, make your case in court that your arrest was unlawful and argue for damages, or simply go to the court of public opinion and try to change the system, but you're still getting arrested no matter what you think of the situation. And if you resist arrest, well, you're going to be subdued with whatever force is necessary and charged with resisting arrest (and convicted rather easily). Short of some exceptional situation where you legitimately fear for your safety if you submit to the police you're an absolute ing idiot if you refuse to comply.

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?

Nope, they have no choice. You're trespassing on private property, and the private property owner has asked for you to be removed. You're also committing the federal crime of interfering with the operation of the aircraft simply by refusing to leave willingly.

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)?

Not at all. Airports are very obvious cases of "federal laws take precedence over state and local laws", but they don't have any special sovereign status.