United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[T.Lex]

Running out of battery so trying to be succinct. You don't get ruled to be being reasonable IF your actions are actively unlawfully breaching your contract.

No worries about the batteries, I think we're at the core of it. Your entire framework for assessing this incident devolves into an assessment whether the passenger had a contractual right to be there, despite policies stating he didn't, federal laws giving the airline personnel the authority to make that determination, and basic common sense that says that's the wrong way to contest a possible contract breach.

I think we're done here.

 

[jbombelli]

Holy geez, the trial I just finished ended after 6 days. I think it's time for closings and to send this to the jury.

That's why INGO is the judge and you're the law talkin' guy.

 

[Libertarian01]

No worries about the batteries, I think we're at the core of it. Your entire framework for assessing this incident devolves into an assessment whether the passenger had a contractual right to be there, despite policies stating he didn't, federal laws giving the airline personnel the authority to make that determination, and basic common sense that says that's the wrong way to contest a possible contract breach.

I think we're done here.

Are you saying that the federal law gives them carte blanche without any limitations to determine when someone can be kicked off?

Surely you're not suggesting that they can act in a racist manner? I am not suggesting that they did here, but if I am reading you correctly they can do whatever they want under federal law and I find that hard to believe.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Benp]

Just speculation, but I would think that the higher ups would have wanted to avoid this situation. I think this was a person lower on the totem pole and was wanting to get their own way and didn't see another solution other than a forcible removal, which is incredible that they would even do such a thing! I think the person who gave the go ahead for the removal probably has lost their job by now, hopefully. These news stories these days are incredible, you would think they are being made up, but no, there is video showing the whole thing. It's sad.

 

[T.Lex]

Are you saying that the federal law gives them carte blanche without any limitations to determine when someone can be kicked off?

Surely you're not suggesting that they can act in a racist manner? I am not suggesting that they did here, but if I am reading you correctly they can do whatever they want under federal law and I find that hard to believe.

Yes, yes, I am, because I'm a statist that believes all power over life and death, good and evil, sunrise and sunset are best implemented by the federal government.

Seriously, people?

This is going to sound terrible (perhaps worse than my exaggeration to open this post), but think of robots. The people doing this are expected to be robotic. They have things to do and times to do them. It is choreographed and rehearsed. They study and are tested on FAA regulations and corporate policies. Independent thought and discretion are hardly allowed only when they are allowed (and they are sometimes allowed).

A passenger needs to be removed. Computer (or supervisor or procedure manual) says its the dude over there. Then that's the special snowflake that's going to get removed. They have that authority.

It is not carte blanche any more than one of those robotic vacuums has carte blanche to go wherever it wants. It can go wherever it wants in the vicinity that I tell it to.

The flight crew can do whatever they want as long as they are following their procedures/policies and FAA regulations.

To my knowledge, none of those allow for racism. Or deplaning someone at angels 20.

 

[Libertarian01]

Just speculation, but I would think that the higher ups would have wanted to avoid this situation. I think this was a person lower on the totem pole and was wanting to get their own way and didn't see another solution other than a forcible removal, which is incredible that they would even do such a thing! I think the person who gave the go ahead for the removal probably has lost their job by now, hopefully. These news stories these days are incredible, you would think they are being made up, but no, there is video showing the whole thing. It's sad.

The problem is that we have no idea what pressure(s) the person who made the final call to ask for airport help is/was under in the totality of their job.

Were they under pressure to keep costs down? Were they told to be more firm with people and then went too far? How was United pressuring them on the whole over the last year to keep things running profitably?

Note that the answer to any of these questions may or may not justify the outcome, but it would go a long way as to explaining how we ended up where we are today. The company culture goes a long way toward guiding how employee's interact with the public and one another. That company culture starts from the top and trickles down to the bottom. No amount of words or speeches can change company culture alone, action and rewarding what the company wants to see must also be present. So no matter what United says they want to do, how they incentivize and encourage action is what is really going to happen. Or, for that matter, the lack of incentives or rewards.

As to losing their job as I understand it no one has been demoted, disciplined, or fired. I am open to correction on this if anyone has verifiable information.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

As to losing their job as I understand it no one has been demoted, disciplined, or fired. I am open to correction on this if anyone has verifiable information.

That is what I've read, as well.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

As to losing their job as I understand it no one has been demoted, disciplined, or fired. I am open to correction on this if anyone has verifiable information.

That is what I've read, as well.

-

United CEO says no one will be fired for dragging incident

 

[Benp]

Well it makes me want to NOT fly with United. Flying used to be exciting and it was a treat to be able to fly somewhere. Now when I hear someone is flying somewhere my first thought is to say "I'm sorry to hear that." Now after you go through paying all of the fees, going through an x-ray, and maybe groped in the process, and finally getting on the plane -- it turns out you may not get to ride. I wouldn't want to get off the plane either, who wants to go through all of that again?! Of course I would not have fought it when the police told me to get up either.

 

[Fargo]

No worries about the batteries, I think we're at the core of it. Your entire framework for assessing this incident devolves into an assessment whether the passenger had a contractual right to be there, despite policies stating he didn't, federal laws giving the airline personnel the authority to make that determination, and basic common sense that says that's the wrong way to contest a possible contract breach.

I think we're done here.

LOL beware the bunching of the whiteness with tightness!

 

[T.Lex]

LOL beware the bunching of the whiteness with tightness!

I'm more relieved than upset.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yes, yes, I am, because I'm a statist that believes all power over life and death, good and evil, sunrise and sunset are best implemented by the federal government.

Seriously, people?

This is going to sound terrible (perhaps worse than my exaggeration to open this post), but think of robots. The people doing this are expected to be robotic. They have things to do and times to do them. It is choreographed and rehearsed. They study and are tested on FAA regulations and corporate policies. Independent thought and discretion are hardly allowed only when they are allowed (and they are sometimes allowed).

A passenger needs to be removed. Computer (or supervisor or procedure manual) says its the dude over there. Then that's the special snowflake that's going to get removed. They have that authority.

It is not carte blanche any more than one of those robotic vacuums has carte blanche to go wherever it wants. It can go wherever it wants in the vicinity that I tell it to.

The flight crew can do whatever they want as long as they are following their procedures/policies and FAA regulations.

To my knowledge, none of those allow for racism. Or deplaning someone at angels 20.

No, I am not accusing you of being an evil statist. Nor did I mean to imply it, so all apologies for any agitation the question caused.

But you do answer well in this post and bring up a point I wish to gently poke at, if I may.

Yes, I agree that they can remove a "special snowflake" if they need to. My respectful contention is that they may, from time to time, violate their contract, policy, and/or federal law when they make a decision.

So my bigger question is this: IF they are violating their contract (leave the law out of it for now) in any way when they chose to kick someone off doesn't that negate any legitimate authority for them to do so? And IF it does, then doesn't the passenger have the justified right to tell them to go pound sand? Respectfully, of course.

In this particular case, the violation of contract and/or policy is separating the man from his wife. It is my understanding that most airlines have it in their contract and/or policy to not do so. IF this is correct, does this not give Dr. Dao legitimate reasoning to refuse to follow a request/order?

What rights and/or protections does the passenger have when the airline violates their own contract, policy, or law? I believe part of the problem is the totality of the circumstances of travel. If someone has to get somewhere in a short period of time necessity dictates they must travel by air - period! There is no other mode of transportation that is faster except possibly in a few, extremely limited circumstances, like point A to point B with high speed rail in Japan or Europe. So the airlines already have by the technology they own (ie. airplanes) the absolute control over our speedy travel.

Now when a conflict occurs between the passenger and the airline regarding such a situation as forced deboarding the passenger is caught between the temporal pressure of arriving on time and the airlines almost irresistible force of authority. The passenger is almost always guaranteed to lose in any such conflict, at least as far as the temporal need to arrive at their destination on time.

In almost no other circumstance does this occur outside of natural disasters or health emergencies. We can always negotiate with a contractor for repairs or use the free market to shop around. If I wish to lease a building for my business the owner of the building can propose a contract, but my lawyer can review it and make recommendations for changes. Thus, me and the potential landlord can negotiate on equal (or near equal) footing. In almost any other situation people are on equal footing under the law, except when it comes to dealing with huge, monolithic corporations. In these situations the corporations can and do dictate the terms of the contract without any room for negotiation, and most try to remove any legal balance of power by forcing arbitration. This creates an unfair imbalance of power.

I apologize for covering a bit of ground here and several different topics. You are doing a good job of defending the position of the airlines position. I guess my concern is how can a customer fight when behind the clock and against an airline that may(?) be violating its contract and/or policy and/or law?

Kind Regards,

Doug

 

[Benp]

In my opinion it would have been better if they were to have everyone exit the plane with their carry on, then reboard only the people they chose could stay on.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, I agree that they can remove a "special snowflake" if they need to. My respectful contention is that they may, from time to time, violate their contract, policy, and/or federal law when they make a decision.

So my bigger question is this: IF they are violating their contract (leave the law out of it for now) in any way when they chose to kick someone off doesn't that negate any legitimate authority for them to do so? And IF it does, then doesn't the passenger have the justified right to tell them to go pound sand? Respectfully, of course.

Ah - now I get the context.

Sure, companies break contracts for good/bad reasons, or employees don't follow policies for good/bad reasons, and liability attaches. The FAA has defined a procedure to address that in administrative proceedings. That's kinda how the airlines sidestep some expensive aspects of common law liability. They (and their lobbyists) traded a small amount of risk-of-the-unknown in litigation for significant government regulation. They like it like that.

Which leads to the "pound sand" issue, which is really a question about venue. WHERE is the right place to make the argument....

In this particular case, the violation of contract and/or policy is separating the man from his wife. It is my understanding that most airlines have it in their contract and/or policy to not do so. IF this is correct, does this not give Dr. Dao legitimate reasoning to refuse to follow a request/order?

IMHO, no - at least, not in the way he did so. Keep in mind, his wife can refuse to board and take another flight. If they are polite (yeah, some donkey kissing might be required) they'll get both tickets taken care of. (BTW, much has been reported, so I don't know we can accept that he and the wife were traveling together, but it doesn't matter for purposes of this explanation.)

What rights and/or protections does the passenger have when the airline violates their own contract, policy, or law? I believe part of the problem is the totality of the circumstances of travel. If someone has to get somewhere in a short period of time necessity dictates they must travel by air - period! There is no other mode of transportation that is faster except possibly in a few, extremely limited circumstances, like point A to point B with high speed rail in Japan or Europe. So the airlines already have by the technology they own (ie. airplanes) the absolute control over our speedy travel.

Now when a conflict occurs between the passenger and the airline regarding such a situation as forced deboarding the passenger is caught between the temporal pressure of arriving on time and the airlines almost irresistible force of authority. The passenger is almost always guaranteed to lose in any such conflict, at least as far as the temporal need to arrive at their destination on time.

In almost no other circumstance does this occur outside of natural disasters or health emergencies. We can always negotiate with a contractor for repairs or use the free market to shop around. If I wish to lease a building for my business the owner of the building can propose a contract, but my lawyer can review it and make recommendations for changes. Thus, me and the potential landlord can negotiate on equal (or near equal) footing. In almost any other situation people are on equal footing under the law, except when it comes to dealing with huge, monolithic corporations. In these situations the corporations can and do dictate the terms of the contract without any room for negotiation, and most try to remove any legal balance of power by forcing arbitration. This creates an unfair imbalance of power.

I apologize for covering a bit of ground here and several different topics. You are doing a good job of defending the position of the airlines position. I guess my concern is how can a customer fight when behind the clock and against an airline that may(?) be violating its contract and/or policy and/or law?

Yeah, I kinda skipped a bunch, but the airlines are a special snowflake unto themselves. You get the confluence of (arguably the worst of) free market, heavy government regulation, significant safety concerns, and overwhelming security concerns. And tons of money.

The plane is not the right place to make the argument. My impression is that the VAST majority of times (this incident may truly be a singular anomaly, or close to it), these issues are resolved before boarding. The first place to make the argument is at the ticket counter. The second place would be up the chain of command at a supervisor's station or corporate facility at the airport. After that, we're talking FAA admin proceedings and lawyer's offices.

Trying to argue you have a right to be on a plane when the airline says you don't is a losing proposition.

Again, no one is proffering an alternate policy. If the first passenger they go to says "no thank you," what are the chances of another passenger saying "yeah sure"? Zero. It is an "I am Spartacus" moment. No one deplanes, so the airline shrugs and tells the FAA that they couldn't get the "other" aircrew where they needed to be because the passengers were selfish. That ain't gonna fly. (Pardon the pun.)

 

[jamil]

Yes, yes, I am, because I'm a statist that believes all power over life and death, good and evil, sunrise and sunset are best implemented by the federal government.

See? I KNEW it?

I didn't read the rest. I found what I wanted to hear in the first sentence.

Is that how this is done?

ETA: I really don't have anything in this discussion. I'm just heckling both sides for entertainment at this point.

 

[Fargo]

Tlex, Your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Such a policy has already been adopted. One of the pilots unthread confirmed this.

https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsde...irlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

 

[T.Lex]

Here's another angle. Remember The Fugitive with Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford? At the dam, Jones finally gets the drop on Ford. Ford says, "I didn't do it." Jones says, "I don't care."

If you are right in your contractuality, the airline personnel, the security personnel, and the other passengers don't really care. They care about getting the plane in the air with less than or equal to the capacity. More than capacity isn't an option.

 

[rob63]

Holy geez, the trial I just finished ended after 6 days. I think it's time for closings and to send this to the jury.

I just can't stop thinking about jury selection on INGO, that would be fun to watch.

 

[T.Lex]

The last paragraph that I think you're referring to.

Again, no one is proffering an alternate policy. If the first passenger they go to says "no thank you," what are the chances of another passenger saying "yeah sure"? Zero. It is an "I am Spartacus" moment. No one deplanes, so the airline shrugs and tells the FAA that they couldn't get the "other" aircrew where they needed to be because the passengers were selfish. That ain't gonna fly. (Pardon the pun.)

Tlex, Your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Such a policy has already been adopted. One of the pilots unthread confirmed this.

https://tmz.hs.llnwd.net/o28/newsde...irlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

I don't think you read either my paragraph or the new policy. (Notice, it took effect after this incident.)

It sets a policy for the timing of deadheading crews getting scheduled onto flights. They CAN be booked onto oversold flights, if the booking is 60 minutes (or more) before the flight is set to take off. That's to prevent the need for deboarding passengers. It explicitly says a passenger won't be taken off, but it does allow for the dreaded bumping of a paying passenger.

It does suggest that the good doctor's situation was an anomaly, in that he was already on the flight.

It also doesn't address the policy issue raised by your oft-repeated assertion that the ticket is a license to board the plane and take the seat. In fact, it further evidences the notion that a deadheading crew CAN displace ticketed passengers as long as it happens before boarding.

 

[jamil]

I just can't stop thinking about jury selection on INGO, that would be fun to watch.

I'll volunteer.