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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not like they're losing money when people don't show up though. Tickets are already paid for, you're not getting a refund. They're just trying to maximize profits.

Missed connections would cut into profits without over booking. Also premium fairs which can reschedule late without penalties.

There is also no difference between "losing money" and "maximizing profits". Any money you don't make is lost regardless of how that money is made.

[White Out 403]

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.c...omment-page-1/

What a smug article riddled with strawman arguments..

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

When someone doesn't feel sorry for the guy assaulted, it tells you all you need to know about their opinion.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The man did not break the law, breaching a civil contract is not criminal, and United should in truth be forced to go to a judge to get a court order to remove him in theory, after which ignoring the court order would be breaking the law.
Not really possible in practise but by forcibly removing someone who isn't breaking the law the United Staff are actually committing assault, in truth they were the only ones that broke the law.

Maybe Acey can clear it up, but I believe airlines are regulated federally and pilots-in-command have special jurisdiction (as do flight attendants who are under the command of the pilot). If they felt that the passenger was interfering with the operation of the aircraft by delaying a take-off, that is a federal offence (and typically gets you taken off with handcuffs on).

Also, I don't think United staff actually laid a hand on him. It was law enforcement.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe Acey can clear it up, but I believe airlines are regulated federally and pilots-in-command have special jurisdiction (as do flight attendants who are under the command of the pilot). If they felt that the passenger was interfering with the operation of the aircraft by delaying a take-off, that is a federal offence (and typically gets you taken off with handcuffs on).

Also, I don't think United staff actually laid a hand on him. It was law enforcement.

Id guess the pilot or attendants would have to show some threat to the safety or operation of the aircraft for that law to apply, needing to make space for a couple of flight attendants for the convenience of the airline isn't what that law was intended for.

Of course this is the US, land of the deluded into thinking they're free, so maybe a judge allows it.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by speede5

I kinda figured that, but even searching google pretty much everything is labelled United or United Express. Wasn't sure if you were possibly alluding to another incident.

Several independent airlines are contracted, so they unify them all under United Express branding. Same deal here with Air Canada Express.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe Acey can clear it up, but I believe airlines are regulated federally and pilots-in-command have special jurisdiction (as do flight attendants who are under the command of the pilot). If they felt that the passenger was interfering with the operation of the aircraft by delaying a take-off, that is a federal offence (and typically gets you taken off with handcuffs on).

Also, I don't think United staff actually laid a hand on him. It was law enforcement.

In addition, this law only applies to special aircraft jurisdictions in the US which only exist after the external aircraft doors are closed.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Id guess the pilot or attendants would have to show some threat to the safety or operation of the aircraft for that law to apply, needing to make space for a couple of flight attendants for the convenience of the airline isn't what that law was intended for.

Of course this is the US, land of the deluded into thinking they're free, so maybe a judge allows it.

It just means they have to define safety. Every delay has an effect on air and runway traffic, which affects the safety of a lot of people. The longer hours sitting on the runway also adds to the fatigue of the pilots and crew. That is why they don't mess around with people being disruptive to the flow of traffic at airports.

There is a lot of stuff that will need to be defined by a court in the long run.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.c.../#comment-1300

What a smug article riddled with strawman arguments..

Thanks for the link, I thought it was a great blog. Which of the angry comments was yours?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

On an average flight, 5 per cent of passengers do not show up.

In a theoretical world where the airlines manage to resell every one of those seats, they're going to make an extra 5%, then. However, in one of the previous articles linked, United made about 275 million by overbooking on 30 billion in revenue, or 1%. A 1% loss in revenue is not going to inflate prices back to where we're using oxen and covered wagons to reach Vegas.

Personally I've never been bumped, but I have taken advantage of no-shows to get on when flying stand-by. That's a win all-around, unlike overbooking.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by jammies

In a theoretical world where the airlines manage to resell every one of those seats, they're going to make an extra 5%, then. However, in one of the previous articles linked, United made about 275 million by overbooking on 30 billion in revenue, or 1%. A 1% loss in revenue is not going to inflate prices back to where we're using oxen and covered wagons to reach Vegas.

Personally I've never been bumped, but I have taken advantage of no-shows to get on when flying stand-by. That's a win all-around, unlike overbooking.

This is an interesting one. I've never been on stand-by.

How long before the flight to they let you know you're on?
Is there a cutoff when you know you can't get on?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is an interesting one. I've never been on stand-by.

How long before the flight to they let you know you're on?
Is there a cutoff when you know you can't get on?

About 5 minutes before boarding

[chemgear]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7680221.html

Is the United Airlines man being smeared in the media even the right David Dao? It shouldn't matter

Then it’s your responsibility to make sure it doesn’t look like you’re orchestrating a smear campaign behind the scenes. Questions have inevitably started to be asked: who dug up those details about David Dao’s apparent medical misdemeanour or the gay sex he supposedly had with a younger man, and why? Did they even check that those details related to the David Dao who was dragged off Flight 3411 in Chicago? There is presently confusion about whether the man on the United flight was actually David Thanh Duc Dao, quite possibly another person entirely to David Anh Duy Dao, the man with the criminal records.

[FlamesAddiction]

I found this article interesting and it gets into the legality:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flig...senger-rights/

The short answer, according to aviation and government sources, is that airlines have a lot of leeway to remove a traveler from a plane, for any reason. "Passengers have far fewer 'rights' than they imagine," says George Hobica, president of AirfareWatchdog.com.

The issue here that took this situation from bad to worse, and led to the video that's now a deserved PR black eye for United, is the timing. "The burning question is, why did they wait until everyone was seated before realizing they needed to move their employees to that flight?" Hobica asks. Most airlines avoid having to yank someone who has already settled in to their seat. Technically, that is still considered a "denied boarding" as long as the plane is still at the gate and is permissible under the law. Just try telling that to the court of public opinion, though, once the world has seen a video like this.

So why can't a passenger simply refuse to leave, as the man in the video did? (He reportedly told the crew he was a doctor and he too needed to be at his destination the following morning for work.) Well, at that point the airline had another legal weapon: Any action or behavior that is judged to be "interfering with the flight crew" is against the law. "Interfering" is vague and can cover a broad range of passenger behavior, and can encompass almost anything that makes the flight crew feel uncomfortable.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just gave you the synopsis of his criminal record. The guy sounds like a scum bag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.0760a2e234f2

Crucified man had prior run-in with authorities

In accordance with this new house style I am writing up an incident whose anniversary some people are celebrating this week.

The gentleman arrested Thursday and tried before Pontius Pilate had a troubled background.

Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals.

He had had prior run-ins with local authorities — most notably, an incident of vandalism in a community center when he wrecked the tables of several licensed money-lenders and bird-sellers. He had used violent language, too, claiming that he could destroy a gathering place and rebuild it.

At the time of his arrest, he had not held a fixed residence for years. Instead, he led an itinerant lifestyle, staying at the homes of friends and advocating the redistribution of wealth.

He had come to the attention of the authorities more than once for his unauthorized distribution of food, disruptive public behavior, and participation in farcical aquatic ceremonies.

Some say that his brutal punishment at the hands of the state was out of proportion to and unrelated to any of these incidents in his record.

But after all, he was no angel.

Spoiler!

[chemgear]

Hmmm more video evidence coming out that the 70 year old passenger was not in fact going nuts or belligerent. Pretty reasonable and calm if anything.

No wonder the CEO has been changing his public press releases from his original "belligerent" claim.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/national/un...ight-willingly

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Hmmm more video evidence coming out that the 70 year old passenger was not in fact going nuts or belligerent. Pretty reasonable and calm if anything.

No wonder the CEO has been changing his public press releases from his original "belligerent" claim.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/national/un...ight-willingly

Not getting up and leaving the aircraft as directed is being belligerent, I'm sure it was being used to describe him as combative and aggressive though.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Thanks for the link, I thought it was a great blog. Which of the angry comments was yours?

That was an informative article. Specifically about the part that United was mandated by Federal Law to get a flight crew to Louisville.

When people travel it's easy to forget that you're part of a vast network of travelling planes, crews, and passengers, all of which are connected. That's illustrated well in this case, 4 people had to be delayed so that 100+ people, an aircraft, and a flight crew would not get cancelled the next day and send further ripples out from there.

If you want to personalize the travel experience fly charter. If you fly an airline they have to take stuff like this into account all the time. Still not defending letting the guy take his seat and obviously the thrashing, but people need to realize its not all about them sometimes.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Not getting up and leaving the aircraft as directed is being belligerent, I'm sure it was being used to describe him as combative and aggressive though.

Wait, am I misunderstanding the word "belligerent"? He's threatening, hostile and aggressive? Warlike?

Jesus, no wonder people are getting shot to death in the US for nothing.

EDIT: And to be fair, there could be a space of time after that article and video where he starts getting hostile as much as a 70 year old grand father can get and gets his head slammed into an armrest. Maybe that video will come out as well. I'm sure United is digging for it.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Wait, am I misunderstanding the word "belligerent"? He's threatening, hostile and aggressive? Warlike?

Jesus, no wonder people are getting shot to death in the US for nothing.

EDIT: And to be fair, there could be a space of time after that article and video where he starts getting hostile as much as a 70 year old grand father can get and gets his head slammed into an armrest. Maybe that video will come out as well. I'm sure United is digging for it.

disapproving wishing to fight or argue