United Airlines forcibly removes passenger on flight they (did not) overbook

[RougeUnderoos]

I think we should all act like children when we are scammed.

The "adult" thing to do seems to be to just shrug your shoulders and take it, and that's a sucker's way of doing things.

[Amethyst]

They were offering a credit and a flight the following afternoon. I understand why people were reluctant to take the offer. I would be too. I think if they offered the same amount in cash, they may have had a different response. If they offered a larger cash amount, they definitely would had takers.

I don't have an issue with him saying, "I'm a doctor, I have patients the next morning." It doesn't make me think he believes he's better than the rest of us. When I travel on vacation, I try to book some extra time for things that happen and I would be willing to be bumped. If I had a rushed trip and had work issues, I would be much less willing and would hope that someone else who didn't need to travel as urgently, would be willing instead.

Clearly a voucher and a flight the next day was not enough incentive, so they should have increased the incentive.

Yes, the guy was talking back, but as long as he wasn't physically hurting anyone, I don't think bashing his head into the armrest and dragging him off was a reasonable way to deal with the situation.

Would I have got off? Most likely, yes. Not because I agree with it, but because I've been conditioned to believe resisting any requests in an airport / airplane will have you immediately sent to jail and that's way more hassle than being bumped.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

What ground? Read the contracts you sign. If you don't like it, don't do business with them. They have the right to do what they did and everyone knows it.

It's such an easy solution. Keep increasing the amount until someone takes the offer. There is a 100 percent chance every single human being is happy

I think part of the issue is the exorbitant fines that airlines get when they cause delays on the runway. In another circumstance, they may have kept auctioning, but at some point, they thought it would be more efficient to let the computer decide who to bump. It ended up being a mistake of course.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think part of the issue is the exorbitant fines that airlines get when they cause delays on the runway. In another circumstance, they may have kept auctioning, but at some point, they thought it would be more efficient to let the computer decide who to bump. It ended up being a mistake of course.

No thats not the issue. The issue is their corporate policy on the ceilings they have to buy back seats. It seriously does not take time to say "ok 1250". 15 seconds pass ... "ok 1400".

Instantly people would stop caring when they hear a flight is overbooked or for whatever reason they need seats back. They will buy seats on an open market at the market price that a buyer and seller agree to.

And if it turns out united thinks they are paying to much, then they should just sell less seats. Market economies have an amazing way of allocating things to the people who value them best.

It absolutely amazes me that people, including the media don't point this out.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

They were offering a credit and a flight the following afternoon. I understand why people were reluctant to take the offer. I would be too. I think if they offered the same amount in cash, they may have had a different response. If they offered a larger cash amount, they definitely would had takers.

I don't have an issue with him saying, "I'm a doctor, I have patients the next morning." It doesn't make me think he believes he's better than the rest of us. When I travel on vacation, I try to book some extra time for things that happen and I would be willing to be bumped. If I had a rushed trip and had work issues, I would be much less willing and would hope that someone else who didn't need to travel as urgently, would be willing instead.

Clearly a voucher and a flight the next day was not enough incentive, so they should have increased the incentive.

Yes, the guy was talking back, but as long as he wasn't physically hurting anyone, I don't think bashing his head into the armrest and dragging him off was a reasonable way to deal with the situation.

Would I have got off? Most likely, yes. Not because I agree with it, but because I've been conditioned to believe resisting any requests in an airport / airplane will have you immediately sent to jail and that's way more hassle than being bumped.

Everything, except the bolded part. Maybe the good doctor should take your advice and book with a plan b. But I totally reject the I'm a doctor whining. Everyone has their own reasons to be back. There was no life or death situations, as he would have pointed that out. He was simply saying he's more Important than others. So meh.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Everything, except the bolded part. Maybe the good doctor should take your advice and book with a plan b. But I totally reject the I'm a doctor whining. Everyone has their own reasons to be back. There was no life or death situations, as he would have pointed that out. He was simply saying he's more Important than others. So meh.

In fact, the warehouse worker or factory worker on the plane would probably be in more danger of losing his job than a doctor with his own practice.

I just hope he gets a lot of money and does some good with it like donate some to addiction programs.

[DiracSpike]

Yeah the guy didn't have open-heart surgery to perform the next morning. And if he absolutely, 100%, had to be back for monday it's really not smart or responsible on his part to book the last flight home the night before.

He tried to act like he was more important that others by playing the doctor card

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yeah the guy didn't have open-heart surgery to perform the next morning. And if he absolutely, 100%, had to be back for monday it's really not smart or responsible on his part to book the last flight home the night before.

He tried to act like he was more important that others by playing the doctor card

lol this is ridiculous.

He's supposed to plan for "voluntarily" getting kicked off the plane he has a ticket for when he's flying home a day early? Maybe he should have bought two tickets on two different airlines?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol this is ridiculous.

He's supposed to plan for "voluntarily" getting kicked off the plane he has a ticket for when he's flying home a day early? Maybe he should have bought two tickets on two different airlines?

Probably three would have been better, cause what if he gets kicked off the one and now is too late to board the other one? I always say if you have somewhere to be the day after a flight, you need two flights booked close together and then another one an hour later. What an ill prepared dumbass.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol this is ridiculous.

He's supposed to plan for "voluntarily" getting kicked off the plane he has a ticket for when he's flying home a day early? Maybe he should have bought two tickets on two different airlines?

I'm just saying that I don't buy the "I HAVE to be home tomorrow" excuse. Because if that was true, it's not smart to take the last flight in the night before because #### happens when you fly. Weather, mechanical issues, and yea, getting bumped even though this is an extraordinary bumping.

The overzealous security guy should get canned but it's hard for me to feel bad for this guy, he'll probably get 1M+ for injuries that will heal in two weeks. I'd get popped in the face and dragged for 10K easily

[nik-]

But he had a ticket. For a flight that was leaving, and wasn't delayed by weather. Seems to me he planned it fine.

Planning for an overbooking is completely ridiculous. It's the airlines problem, not his. They forced him to "volunteer" after he told them he couldn't be delayed for a day. Looks like they're probably going to pay a pretty penny for it.

[Amethyst]

It's not best to take the last flight, but sometimes that's all that works. My cousin got married out of town at a time when I could not take holidays from work. So I went for the weekend, and hoped everything worked out. If I was about to get bumped, I would hope the airline would offer decent enough compensation that the person who had the following day off would agree instead.

If they asked me, I would say, no, I needed to be at work in the morning. If they insisted, I would do it, but a flight credit to make up for the day's pay I was losing would not make me happy.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'm just saying that I don't buy the "I HAVE to be home tomorrow" excuse. Because if that was true, it's not smart to take the last flight in the night before because #### happens when you fly. Weather, mechanical issues, and yea, getting bumped even though this is an extraordinary bumping.

The overzealous security guy should get canned but it's hard for me to feel bad for this guy, he'll probably get 1M+ for injuries that will heal in two weeks. I'd get popped in the face and dragged for 10K easily

I don't understand this thinking. You don't know his motivations for anything and are just attributing lack of preparedness to him and then cutting down his character based on your own assumptions.

A) How you know he left it til the last minute? Maybe he has a busy, stressful life and had family, business commitments that required a flight when he booked it for?

B) Do you realize the sheer volume of people that are ill prepared with their flights with important things going on the next day by your ridiculous standard?

I would argue there's more business people out there that have flights booked that get them to their destination the night before or even the morning of than there are business people hanging out in cities for an extra day in case of day+ delays.

[DiracSpike]

As they should, because they were too cheap to keep upping the reward and they royally effed it up. But my thing is someone had to get bumped. Everyone has jobs, families, duties they're going home to, it's really hard to quantify the "I need to be back home more than this person or that person." You should plan for all kinds of delays when you travel, I was at SFO when a lady was screaming at the ticket booth because her flight to Honolulu was cancelled for her daughter's wedding the next day. She was irate, and the reason the flight was cancelled was because they couldn't fix the nav system on the plane and they didn't have one in reserve. It's technically the airlines problem because its their plane but she obviously should have left herself some room for error. This stuff happens ALL THE TIME in air travel.

EDIT: and for Jayswin, I'm not saying that you should always leave a day, when I book flights I assume I'll be there the day of and I fly home the day before going to work all the time. But I do that with the knowledge that if something happened to delay me I wouldn't miss anything imperative. My example of the lady screaming at the SFO ticket counter would be an example of someone who should have booked with some better foresight.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

the reason the flight was cancelled was because they couldn't fix the nav system on the plane and they didn't have one in reserve. It's technically the airlines problem because its their plane but she obviously should have left herself some room for error. This stuff happens ALL THE TIME in air travel.

If an entire planeload of people cannot fly due to a technical issue, that's one thing. To be told YOU need to get off (along with 3 others) because we the airline have determined we have 4 people who are more important than you are, that smacks of arrogance.

Sure it wasn't about those 4 people but about another planeload, but depending on how it was explained, I might not want to get off a plane that I had paid for and already boarded. I wonder how something like that might hold up in civil court under contract law. You made a contract and they took your money and put you on the plane, and then wanted to go back on the contract.

Restaurants have the right to refuse service. What if you had gone into a restaurant, was seated, and ordered. Then just as your food was being placed in front of you, the manager tells you that you need to leave- they need the table to feed their staff coming on for the next shift. How would you feel about that?

The one change I like that they are talking about is limiting the time, that the airline has to make its head count an hour before the scheduled departure time.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by ken0042

If an entire planeload of people cannot fly due to a technical issue, that's one thing. To be told YOU need to get off (along with 3 others) because we the airline have determined we have 4 people who are more important than you are, that smacks of arrogance.

Sure it wasn't about those 4 people but about another planeload, but depending on how it was explained, I might not want to get off a plane that I had paid for and already boarded. I wonder how something like that might hold up in civil court under contract law. You made a contract and they took your money and put you on the plane, and then wanted to go back on the contract.

Restaurants have the right to refuse service. What if you had gone into a restaurant, was seated, and ordered. Then just as your food was being placed in front of you, the manager tells you that you need to leave- they need the table to feed their staff coming on for the next shift. How would you feel about that?

The one change I like that they are talking about is limiting the time, that the airline has to make its head count an hour before the scheduled departure time.

I wouldn't want to get off either, and it probably wasn't explained that those four employees were needed for another flight, most people probably thought they were hitching a free ride home or something.

But people really need to understand the point that those 100+ people waiting in Louisville come into the equation as well. The reason you can buy an airline ticket for $200 instead of paying $10k to fly charter is that you are balancing the cost with other flyers. And not even just the other people that happen to be on your flight, but the thousands of people that fly with a larger multi-national carrier like United every day. They have to do the calculus to get people to their destinations effeciently and I think given the complexity of air travel it's nothing short of a marvel that it works as well as it does. But sometimes things happen and measures need to be taken. Those 100+ Louisville flyers all had tickets to go wherever they were going, and I'm sure wanted to get there just as desperately as the Chicago-Louisville flyers wanted to get there. So the airline looks at the situation and says, "4 people have to be delayed here so 100 people aren't delayed/cancelled in Louisville." It's a necessary step that I'm honestly amazed doesn't happen more often. Your restaurant anaology is interesting but not totally applicable since its not really imperative to restaurant operations to have their employees eat there.

I just think it's a little naive to say "I have my ticket so I should 100% be able to fly from here to here on this date, guaranteed." It's not as simple as that. If you want that guarantee then head to the charter terminal at YYC and fly SunWest or MillionAir and be prepared to pay $12 000 round trip.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by nik-

But he had a ticket. For a flight that was leaving, and wasn't delayed by weather. Seems to me he planned it fine.

Planning for an overbooking is completely ridiculous. It's the airlines problem, not his. They forced him to "volunteer" after he told them he couldn't be delayed for a day. Looks like they're probably going to pay a pretty penny for it.

Jeez.

You don't understand the underlying issue, and what a "ticket" entitles you to.

Every time you buy a seat on united, or AC for that matter you don't own a guaranteed seat. You might think that it "should" but that's not relevant. The terms you sign up for say that you don't.

I come back to the fact there is one simple solution to all of this and for the Carrier to properly buy back tickets they oversell. No caps or limits, just up the price Neil you have a mutually agreeable deal with a passenger. It regulates how many seats they actually sell, and at the same time be efficient about lost or waste that is created by no shows.

[WhiteTiger]

I look at all this, and I can't help but think: "Don't most people operate under/know about/figure the whole 'We reserve the right to refuse service' bit from pretty much any business ever comes into play?"

Seems to me that if the airline says "Sorry, we can't send you on this flight. We have to refuse you service at this time" and you you get more than the price of your ticket back...you are generally ahead of the game. In cases with an airline, you usually still get your flight (just later), some cash or vouchers and they book you onto another flight (so that you don't have to, yourself).

This is definitely going to lead to some interesting discussions around customer entitlement, 'rights' and privileges, to be sure.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I look at all this, and I can't help but think: "Don't most people operate under/know about/figure the whole 'We reserve the right to refuse service' bit from pretty much any business ever comes into play?"

Seems to me that if the airline says "Sorry, we can't send you on this flight. We have to refuse you service at this time" and you you get more than the price of your ticket back...you are generally ahead of the game. In cases with an airline, you usually still get your flight (just later), some cash or vouchers and they book you onto another flight (so that you don't have to, yourself).

This is definitely going to lead to some interesting discussions around customer entitlement, 'rights' and privileges, to be sure.

Yeah this isn't a good mindset for flying though. We aren't talking about denying a dude a XBOX or a Pizza. This is a Doctor flying home to work. or in another scenario anyone going home to their family or whatever else.

The person had rights, and United ignored them. He was boarded, seated, and buckled ready to go. United has an obligation to keep increasing their offer to have avoided this. They chose to try and cheap out, as so often a business does to keep costs down. The free market will now bitch slap them, and I'm glad for it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Jeez.

You don't understand the underlying issue, and what a "ticket" entitles you to.

Every time you buy a seat on united, or AC for that matter you don't own a guaranteed seat. You might think that it "should" but that's not relevant. The terms you sign up for say that you don't.

I come back to the fact there is one simple solution to all of this and for the Carrier to properly buy back tickets they oversell. No caps or limits, just up the price Neil you have a mutually agreeable deal with a passenger. It regulates how many seats they actually sell, and at the same time be efficient about lost or waste that is created by no shows.

I understand that a ticket isn't a legal bond for travel at a specific time, but suggesting that someone is executing poor planning for following the same thought process that results in a successful trip for the vast, VAST majority of the time is just ridiculous.

Nothing to do with alternative plans comes into the equation here. Sounds an awful lot like smarts in hindsight to me.