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).