United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[ArcadiaGP]

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

I'll volunteer.

I'll mention nullification.

 

[Fargo]

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

WTH? I have been arguing from way back that the doctor has a contract case because he was boarded since the outset. If he hadn't been boarded then rule 25 applies. Now, I think rule 25 is stupid but that doesn't mean that the airline wouldn't win on it. It probably would if they hadn't had him on the damn plane already.

 

[indiucky]

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

I'm in for watching Hough do his John Goodman as a simple country lawyer impression.....

 

[T.Lex]

WTH? I have been arguing from way back that the doctor has a contract case because he was boarded since the outset. If he hadn't been boarded then rule 25 applies. Now, I think rule 25 is stupid but that doesn't mean that the airline wouldn't win on it. It probably would if they hadn't had him on the damn plane already.

Changing the policy on timing of deadhead crew scheduling doesn't mean there was a problem with the original situation.

The downside to boarding (in the legalistic sense) is that it more kicks in 91.11.

And, the core problem of this incident from your perspective is the legality of getting him off the plane (assuming he didn't leave the plane once).

I don't think that's the core problem.

In the bigger picture, there's the policy issue of what to do in overbooked/deadhead-priority bumping. As I recall - and correct me if I have this wrong - your position is that a) it shouldn't happen, and/or b) the passenger shouldn't be forced "off" of the flight (either once their boarded or before boarding).

 

[indiucky]

WTH? I have been arguing from way back that the doctor has a contract case because he was boarded since the outset. If he hadn't been boarded then rule 25 applies. Now, I think rule 25 is stupid but that doesn't mean that the airline wouldn't win on it. It probably would if they hadn't had him on the damn plane already.

 

[Libertarian01]

...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...

While I don't like some of your answers, thank you for the explanation.

However, given the quote above, didn't the doctor do right for himself if he was truly wanting to sue over this? Had he done everything as you say, politely, courteously, jumping through all of the hoops we want him to, no lawyer would take his case (at least not without hourly compensation only)? Any lawyer he went to would laugh him out of the office? "You want to sue WHO? United? Over what? Now GTFO and never come back!!!"

On the other hand, video of United (simplifying here) using force to drag him off the plane screaming...? I don't think he'd be laughed out of too many law offices now. Wouldn't most lawyers prefer video such as we have versus a story of him doing everything "right" and still being allegedly screwed?

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

While I don't like some of your answers, thank you for the explanation.

However, given the quote above, didn't the doctor do right for himself if he was truly wanting to sue over this? Had he done everything as you say, politely, courteously, jumping through all of the hoops we want him to, no lawyer would take his case (at least not without hourly compensation only)? Any lawyer he went to would laugh him out of the office? "You want to sue WHO? United? Over what? Now GTFO and never come back!!!"

On the other hand, video of United (simplifying here) using force to drag him off the plane screaming...? I don't think he'd be laughed out of too many law offices now. Wouldn't most lawyers prefer video such as we have versus a story of him doing everything "right" and still being allegedly screwed?

Oh man. So, I read this and in my head I hear, "So if I get pulled over and can provoke the cop to beat me, I can get the ticket dismissed and make some money?"

Well, maybe.

I'd rather not get my ass kicked.

 

[Libertarian01]

Oh man. So, I read this and in my head I hear, "So if I get pulled over and can provoke the cop to beat me, I can get the ticket dismissed and make some money?"

Well, maybe.

I'd rather not get my ass kicked.

I am not saying I like it either, so perhaps it may(?) be a truth neither one of us likes to hear but cannot deny.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

I am not saying I like it either, so perhaps it may(?) be a truth neither one of us likes to hear but cannot deny.

In the world of plaintiffs' litigation, the more pain, the more gain.

I have some friends (believe it or not) and the father and son were t-boned going through a green light by a guy that ran a red light (high on marijuana). The son spent time at Riley intensive care, but has made a full recovery. That's a happy ending. The insurance company settled for a significant amount of money (that's gone into a trust account for the son's benefit). These are good people who had a very bad thing happen to them, that was very nearly a tragedy.

As someone who's faced financial troubles (the hard times help you appreciate the good times), I wouldn't trade having one of my kids go through that for any amount of money - even if I knew how it ended.

That's a long way around to say that if doing it the right way would've netted him a couple grand, and doing it the wrong way will net him 10x that amount (or 20x), it still wouldn't be worth it to me. But sure, it'll be worth it to his attorneys.

 

[Fargo]

In the bigger picture, there's the policy issue of what to do in overbooked/deadhead-priority bumping. As I recall - and correct me if I have this wrong - your position is that a) it shouldn't happen, and/or b) the passenger shouldn't be forced "off" of the flight (either once their boarded or before boarding).

You have my position about 45% right. I just got home from kickboxing and the county spelling bee and to be honest watching the daughter spell was way more stressful than getting hit. I'm not ignoring you, I am just postponing my explanation in favor of beer.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

Schedule.
That plane needs to be somewhere.
After that, somewhere else. And so on.

That terminal has a plane waiting.
That plane has somewhere else to be. And so on.

 

[actaeon277]

Sitting in a seat does not mean boarding is done. It is not a goal in a schoolyard exercise.
The plane is boarding, till the doors are shut, electrical switched over to onboard, and taxiing begins.

 

[T.Lex]

You have my position about 45% right. I just got home from kickboxing and the county spelling bee and to be honest watching the daughter spell was way more stressful than getting hit. I'm not ignoring you, I am just postponing my explanation in favor of beer.

No worries.

Family and beer always trump INGO.

Sometimes even in that order.

 

[Fargo]

In the bigger picture, there's the policy issue of what to do in overbooked/deadhead-priority bumping. As I recall - and correct me if I have this wrong - your position is that a) it shouldn't happen, and/or b) the passenger shouldn't be forced "off" of the flight (either once their boarded or before boarding).

Ok, here goes.

1. I don't see deadhead bumping and overbooked bumping as the same thing so I'm going to treat them separately. Overbooked bumping is in my opinion immoral and inethical since you're selling two tickets for what you know is one seat. You are contemplating breach in the very formation of the contract which in my opinion is definitionally dealing in bad faith. If you want to sell standby tickets, you should sell them as standby tickets. Now, it is my understanding that the fight in question was not an overbooked situation, but I still think it is relevant. The bulk of the reason that people immediately perceived this as such it terribly unjust thing is because they all know that the airlines have been openly dealing in bad faith and it now appears they are willing to have asses kicked to continue to do so. The airline also made this worse by doubling down initially that this was just a fine way to treat someone in overbook situation.

2. Deadhead bumping is in my opinion a different proposition as long as it is predicated upon some sort of emergency, mechanical breakdown or medical issue etc. I have no issue with an Act of God type clause allowing passengers to be denied boarding in the event that deadheading the crew is the only reasonable way to prevent further disruption of service. In light of some of the previous behaviors of the airlines though, I would expect some federal oversight on this but since they receive huge amounts of federal money I don't really see that as being too onerous. HOWEVER, since the airline is still very sophisticated drafting party, they need to have clear contractual provisions on this and they have to adhere to them. If they want to be able to pull you off the plane they need to say they are able to pull you off the plane. The plain meaning of denied boarding read in the light favorable to the non-drafting party does not in my opinion encompass this. If this really was a non-overbook situation I wouldn't have a per se problem with bumping as long as the passengers contractual rights are honored.

3. I outlined my position on why private parties don't get to use the cops to leverage their civil matters above. Since the agency in question and the airline now publicly state that they agree that law enforcement isnt supposed to be dealing with customer service issues, I'm not going to belabor the point.

4. I will say that if they want to have their contract allow removal from planes, it better be pretty damn ironclad specific as to when a person loses their contractual interest. That is another reason that I really think this would need government oversight, you can't let private corporations decide at whim when things become criminal/law enforcement matter.

5. I think it would be stupid to have a contract/policy allowing removal from planes. If you have even a basic level of organizational efficiency you could do just fine with the policy that has now been promulgated and avoid the entire issue of having to forcibly remove people. You can win that war before it ever starts if you just don't let them on the plane to begin with and have a non-greedy reason for doing it. You look a hell of a lot more sympathetic if you deny entry rather than allow people on and then drag them off.

6. If anybody at United deserves disciplined, IMO it is whatever lawyer or corporate type decided to treat denial of boarding as a license to forcibly remove boarded passengers. If that was the intent, then the drafting lawyer probably needs to find new work. If that was a new interpretation not based on what they originally wanted in the contract, whoever decided to go that route probably needs a close look at.

7. If the agency is accurately describing it's existing policies, the security guys probably should find a new line of work and may face much worse.

8. I am kind of torn about the doctor, it's not what I would've done it but I'm not going to go so far as to condemn him. He received what appears to me to be a likely unlawful whooping, which we are constantly told we are supposed to sue to remedy. However, he is in the curious position of his suit being worth far more than actual damages. I would wager that the value to United of him not making a weekly rounds of Good Morning America, 60 minutes, nightline,etc. is worth way more than normal damages. Plus, as a general rule, the pictures of a whooping are much much worse three days later after all the blood has pooled then right off the bat. Add in the easy to bruise senior citizen thing, and I would guess that United really really doesn't want those splashed all over the news.

At the end of the day, the whole thing is just really ugly, but I am kind of pleased that for the first time in a long time the airlines actually appeared to be worried about customer service in some fashion.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, here goes.

1. I don't see deadhead bumping and overbooked bumping as the same thing so I'm going to treat them separately. Overbooked bumping is in my opinion immoral and inethical since you're selling two tickets for what you know is one seat. You are contemplating breach in the very formation of the contract which in my opinion is definitionally dealing in bad faith. If you want to sell standby tickets, you should sell them as standby tickets. Now, it is my understanding that the fight in question was not an overbooked situation, but I still think it is relevant. The bulk of the reason that people immediately perceived this as such it terribly unjust thing is because they all know that the airlines have been openly dealing in bad faith and it now appears they are willing to have asses kicked to continue to do so. The airline also made this worse by doubling down initially that this was just a fine way to treat someone in overbook situation.

I suggest we set this aside.

As you note, it isn't what happened in this isolated situation. It is a highly legalistic area (other than your opinion that it is bad faith/unethical) so somewhat like arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

2. Deadhead bumping is in my opinion a different proposition as long as it is predicated upon some sort of emergency, mechanical breakdown or medical issue etc. I have no issue with an Act of God type clause allowing passengers to be denied boarding in the event that deadheading the crew is the only reasonable way to prevent further disruption of service. In light of some of the previous behaviors of the airlines though, I would expect some federal oversight on this but since they receive huge amounts of federal money I don't really see that as being too onerous. HOWEVER, since the airline is still very sophisticated drafting party, they need to have clear contractual provisions on this and they have to adhere to them. If they want to be able to pull you off the plane they need to say they are able to pull you off the plane. The plain meaning of denied boarding read in the light favorable to the non-drafting party does not in my opinion encompass this. If this really was a non-overbook situation I wouldn't have a per se problem with bumping as long as the passengers contractual rights are honored.

I think this is the most fertile ground for consensus.

Except (there's always an "except") when it comes to the force majeure event. In this case, my understanding is that it was an indirect result of bad weather elsewhere. A crew was unable to fly due to regulatory issues that involved earlier weather delays. I'm not holding that out as fact, just my understanding. Taken all together, I would count that as a force majeure event, although you may disagree.

3. I outlined my position on why private parties don't get to use the cops to leverage their civil matters above. Since the agency in question and the airline now publicly state that they agree that law enforcement isnt supposed to be dealing with customer service issues, I'm not going to belabor the point.

On this point, there's a practical problem: if someone is preventing the plane from taking off, how is that not a LE issue? I think that's a copout (pardon the possible pun) by the LE agency to say it was a customer service issue when, in this specific incident, the plane couldn't fly until he was removed.

4. I will say that if they want to have their contract allow removal from planes, it better be pretty damn ironclad specific as to when a person loses their contractual interest. That is another reason that I really think this would need government oversight, you can't let private corporations decide at whim when things become criminal/law enforcement matter.

I think this falls into the same category as #1. It devolves into an argument about whether the CFR grants the authority to flight crews that the FAA thinks it does.

5. I think it would be stupid to have a contract/policy allowing removal from planes. If you have even a basic level of organizational efficiency you could do just fine with the policy that has now been promulgated and avoid the entire issue of having to forcibly remove people. You can win that war before it ever starts if you just don't let them on the plane to begin with and have a non-greedy reason for doing it. You look a hell of a lot more sympathetic if you deny entry rather than allow people on and then drag them off.

No real disagreement here, except that mistakes happen.

I don't know that it is an established "fact" as to whether he deplaned then re-boarded. I think the presence/absence of that informs your opinion.

For me, whether it was SOP or an exception event that he was on the plane, there was a problem with him being on the plane and the problem needed to be solved.

6. If anybody at United deserves disciplined, IMO it is whatever lawyer or corporate type decided to treat denial of boarding as a license to forcibly remove boarded passengers. If that was the intent, then the drafting lawyer probably needs to find new work. If that was a new interpretation not based on what they originally wanted in the contract, whoever decided to go that route probably needs a close look at.

People following orders has been an issue for a long time, and probably always will be.

In terms of the drafters, it was likely a group of people with different perspectives who, by a lack of creativity, never envisioned something like this would happen. That it appears not to have happened previously informs the uniqueness of this incident.

7. If the agency is accurately describing it's existing policies, the security guys probably should find a new line of work and may face much worse.

I disagree, but whatever.

The doc caused a problem, yo they solved it.
Check out the hook, while the media revolves it.

8. I am kind of torn about the doctor, it's not what I would've done it but I'm not going to go so far as to condemn him. He received what appears to me to be a likely unlawful whooping, which we are constantly told we are supposed to sue to remedy. However, he is in the curious position of his suit being worth far more than actual damages. I would wager that the value to United of him not making a weekly rounds of Good Morning America, 60 minutes, nightline,etc. is worth way more than normal damages. Plus, as a general rule, the pictures of a whooping are much much worse three days later after all the blood has pooled then right off the bat. Add in the easy to bruise senior citizen thing, and I would guess that United really really doesn't want those splashed all over the news.

Glad to see you addressing his role in this.

Indeed, the optics value of his claim is FAR more valuable than his actual claim.

At the end of the day, the whole thing is just really ugly, but I am kind of pleased that for the first time in a long time the airlines actually appeared to be worried about customer service in some fashion.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Or doesn't.

ETA:
More importantly, how did the spelling bee go?

 

[Fargo]

She took 4th out of the 20 schools participating. She had a good time which is all I cared about.

 

[Benp]

But I see it as the people holding up the plane wasn't the passengers, but the crew that United decided at the last minute needed to be on the plane.
Thoughts?

 

[CountryBoy19]

On this point, there's a practical problem: if someone is preventing the plane from taking off, how is that not a LE issue? I think that's a copout (pardon the possible pun) by the LE agency to say it was a customer service issue when, in this specific incident, the plane couldn't fly until he was removed.

I don't believe the doc was preventing the plane from taking off. UAL's refusal to send the plane on it's way and find another way to get the crew to SDF was what was preventing the plane from taking off.

Like Fargo has been saying all along, this is all dependent on what denial of boarding is. It seems to my non-lawyer mind, that once he is in his seat and he is asked to voluntarily leave the plane, then involuntarily told to leave the plane it is no longer denial of boarding, he has already boarded.

 

[Fargo]

I suggest we set this aside.

As you note, it isn't what happened in this isolated situation. It is a highly legalistic area (other than your opinion that it is bad faith/unethical) so somewhat like arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.


I think this is the most fertile ground for consensus.

Except (there's always an "except") when it comes to the force majeure event. In this case, my understanding is that it was an indirect result of bad weather elsewhere. A crew was unable to fly due to regulatory issues that involved earlier weather delays. I'm not holding that out as fact, just my understanding. Taken all together, I would count that as a force majeure event, although you may disagree.


On this point, there's a practical problem: if someone is preventing the plane from taking off, how is that not a LE issue? I think that's a copout (pardon the possible pun) by the LE agency to say it was a customer service issue when, in this specific incident, the plane couldn't fly until he was removed.


I think this falls into the same category as #1. It devolves into an argument about whether the CFR grants the authority to flight crews that the FAA thinks it does.


No real disagreement here, except that mistakes happen.

I don't know that it is an established "fact" as to whether he deplaned then re-boarded. I think the presence/absence of that informs your opinion.

For me, whether it was SOP or an exception event that he was on the plane, there was a problem with him being on the plane and the problem needed to be solved.


People following orders has been an issue for a long time, and probably always will be.

In terms of the drafters, it was likely a group of people with different perspectives who, by a lack of creativity, never envisioned something like this would happen. That it appears not to have happened previously informs the uniqueness of this incident.


I disagree, but whatever.

The doc caused a problem, yo they solved it.
Check out the hook, while the media revolves it.


Glad to see you addressing his role in this.

Indeed, the optics value of his claim is FAR more valuable than his actual claim.



Enjoy it while it lasts. Or doesn't.

ETA:
More importantly, how did the spelling bee go?

My 1 isn't really a legal argument, it is a right/wrong and good/bad business argument. Morality aside, I maintain is generally bad for business when a very large percentage of your customers look on you in a scummy light. Even in a highly protected and regulated quasi-monopoly, those people may vote people into office who are going to pull your protections and your money spigot privileges. How much airline stock does The country's chief executive hold?

On number 2, this very well and may have been a reasonably necessary deadheading. However, IMO it will always be looked at in the scummy light of overbooking and the execution was about as **** poor as possible.

On number 3, I would quibble with your characterization that the passenger sitting in his seat is preventing the plane from taking off. If the FAA regulations really say this, then the current United policy of not removing for deadheads is in open and blatant violation of those FAA regs.

On 4, I don't think you and I are never going to agree on the interpretation of those federal regulations or what we both claim the FAA says they mean.

On the other stuff, I will be curious to see how the employment issues, law-enforcement policy issues, and settlement resolve. There are just way too many factors and forces in play on all of those to do much more than handicap them.

 

[T.Lex]

My 1 isn't really a legal argument, it is a right/wrong and good/bad business argument.

Ok, I'm up for that.

Morality aside, I maintain is generally bad for business when a very large percentage of your customers look on you in a scummy light. Even in a highly protected and regulated quasi-monopoly, those people may vote people into office who are going to pull your protections and your money spigot privileges.

Wait. We're both lawyers. "Business" in which "a very large percentage of your customers look on you in a scummy light" hits pretty close to home.

How much airline stock does The country's chief executive hold?

Has nothing to do with this situation..

On number 3, I would quibble with your characterization that the passenger sitting in his seat is preventing the plane from taking off. If the FAA regulations really say this, then the current United policy of not removing for deadheads is in open and blatant violation of those FAA regs.

The FAA regs don't require deplaning (they don't need to). They allow the flight crew to make that determination.

I think it is worth saying the primary policy was to avoid this situation in the first place. Just like tough cases make bad law, when something falls through the cracks, the fix can be painful. This whole thing appears to me to be an exercise in plan B (or even C). The change in the policy reaffirms that.

But, it is accurate to say the doctor - upon being told to get off the plane and refusing, politely or otherwise - kept that plane from moving away from the gate. The flight couldn't take off with an "extra" passenger. That's a big no-no. It couldn't take off with 3/4 of the deadheading crew. That wouldn't make sense.

Another passenger could've volunteered as tribute, but they were too busy filming. In today's world, that's just not likely to happen.

On 4, I don't think you and I are never going to agree on the interpretation of those federal regulations or what we both claim the FAA says they mean.

We don't have to. The administrative agency and the courts already agree with me.

Good job on the spelling bee to your daughter! Going in front of people and executing as best you can is a skill that needs to be developed. Some kids have a natural affinity for it, but its something everyone should cultivate at young age.