Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

[OnePercenter]

I wouldn't bet on it. Overbooking equates to tens of millions in revenue.

What I will bet on is that people that are bumped won't be allowed to board.

That's how it is normally handled. This case tells me that the crew addition was a last minute change, not a regularly scheduled one.

Possibly. What I do know is that there is too much money involved in bumping for it to go away.

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

If you have more bodies than seats you are overbooked.

 

[rightwinger]

UAL has already gotten away with it and cops always get away with it. A frail 69 year old is such a threat to three burly policemen

But UAL has taken a pounding in bad publicity and has their CEO groveling on a daily basis. I would bet you will never see United or any other airline bumping passengers who have already been seated

I wouldn't bet on it. Overbooking equates to tens of millions in revenue.

What I will bet on is that people that are bumped won't be allowed to board.

It is not going to happen once passengers have boarded

No Airline wants to become the next United and the flying public knows what to do

Investors will make the call. The flying public will forget in six months.

Investors have no say in bumping procedures
While passengers will still be bumped, it will be done before boarding
No airline will risk boarding a flight and dragging off passengers for the purpose of bumping them from the flight

Investors have everything to do with procedures, it's called a sell-off.

That is fucking ridiculous

 

[deannalw]

AMERICAN AIRLINES!
Where we might lose your luggage, but we won't beat the piss out of you!

 

[ChrisL]

There should be rules against the airlines doing that to people. If you've purchased your ticket and you are seated in your designated seat, then how in the hell can they just randomly decide to throw you off the plane? It is just wrong to do that to someone. Why are THEIR employees getting to work the customer's problem? They can offer people money or whatever for their ticket, but if the person says no, then that should be it, and they should make other arrangements for their employees. This doesn't seem fair at all to me.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't bet on it. Overbooking equates to tens of millions in revenue.

What I will bet on is that people that are bumped won't be allowed to board.

That's how it is normally handled. This case tells me that the crew addition was a last minute change, not a regularly scheduled one.

Possibly. What I do know is that there is too much money involved in bumping for it to go away.

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

 

[MikeK]

...I would prefer looking like a Liberal than an authoritarian nitwit.

Agreed, but here you are both. You want to force a business to do something that harms their business.

You have a remarkable ability to see things that you wish to see -- even if they don't exist. (There is a name for that condition but I don't wish to digress.)

I've suggested nothing more than the airline could have handled that situation in a far more intelligent, far less aggressive manner. It is they who resort to force as the primary approach to a situation. Not I.

You want the Feds to control the situation, not let market forces do it.

How did you arrive at this one? That is quite a mechanism you've got working there.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

Yes, there was, but I'm content to wait for the Federal and State charges to be filed as proof.

FYI, if you are ever asked to get off an airliner, it's a crime for you to refuse.

Doesn't appear it's going to turn out the way you think.

At least two officers involved have been put on administrative leave and United is reimbursing every passenger on that flight their airfare.

In response to being asked, "what did you think when you saw that video of a man being dragged off one of one of your planes?" Oscar Muñoz, United's CEO, answered, "Probably the word, 'ashamed,' comes to mind. This can never -- will never happen again on a United Airlines flight. That's my premise and that's my promise."

When asked, "do you think he's [David Dao] at fault in any way," Muñoz replied, "no. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting in our seat in our aircraft and no one should be traded that way." Muñoz continued, "to remove a booked, paid, seating passenger... we can't do that."

It seems everyone who knows better, knows you're wrong, except you.

 

[Faun]

Then show me specifically where their contract states a paid, non-belligerent, non-abusive, non- threatenening, compliant passanger has to give up his seat that he's already in; for a United employee...

Let the law sort it out. Do you at least agree that Dao committed a crime when he refused to obey a lawful order from a Chicago police officer?

I don't have enough facts to answer that. I don't know if they properly identified themselves as officers. The guy who yanked Dao out of his seat was dressed in jeans and a jacket. Could be Dao didn't know they were law enforcement.

 

[Faun]

I suppose this is just like our argument over that tragic hot air balloon accident in that we'll have to let the results speak towards who was right. My position is that Dao will receive compensation for United's horrid handling of this and that that Dao will not be charged with any crimes in connection with his refusal to deplane.

I remember several balloon accidents. Which conversations are you referencing?

The one you were horribly wrong about.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Please show me evidence of how many patients he was supposed to meet the next day and how they'd have suffered if he was delayed.

None of that is relevant. It was up to the airline to solve that problem in a manner which would not result in the brutal, humiliating assault we've witnessed. The most obvious way would be to offer a reasonable cash inducement for cooperative surrender -- but the airline chose to forcibly assert its authority.

Since when is calling the police abuse?

What the police did was abusive. But the proper word for what the airline did is excess. They chose to use force when more a more civilized solution to the problem was readily available to them.

If a home invader breaks into your house, do you seriously believe he has a legitimate legal claim of abuse if you call the police? WTF?

Do you seriously believe there is a reasonable comparison between a home invasion and a dispute over a seat on an airplane?

 

[Divine Wind]

That's how it is normally handled. This case tells me that the crew addition was a last minute change, not a regularly scheduled one.

Possibly. What I do know is that there is too much money involved in bumping for it to go away.

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

 

[Divine Wind]

None of that is relevant.....

Awesome.

$25 says you wouldn't give a shit if the passenger had been gay or Muslim.

 

[Divine Wind]

I suppose this is just like our argument over that tragic hot air balloon accident in that we'll have to let the results speak towards who was right. My position is that Dao will receive compensation for United's horrid handling of this and that that Dao will not be charged with any crimes in connection with his refusal to deplane.

I remember several balloon accidents. Which conversations are you referencing?

The one you were horribly wrong about.

Since you failed to bring up evidence, I'll just assume you are lying...again.

 

[Divine Wind]

Then show me specifically where their contract states a paid, non-belligerent, non-abusive, non- threatenening, compliant passanger has to give up his seat that he's already in; for a United employee...

Let the law sort it out. Do you at least agree that Dao committed a crime when he refused to obey a lawful order from a Chicago police officer?

I don't have enough facts to answer that. I don't know if they properly identified themselves as officers. The guy who yanked Dao out of his seat was dressed in jeans and a jacket. Could be Dao didn't know they were law enforcement.

1) The investigation will reveal the facts.
2) The uniforms and badges are a clue:

3)A fair point. I don't know who Mr. Jeans was, but it appears he came on afterwards. From what I've read, he's a police officer and the first one put on administrative leave. The other two were put on leave later.

 

[Divine Wind]

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

Yes, there was, but I'm content to wait for the Federal and State charges to be filed as proof.

FYI, if you are ever asked to get off an airliner, it's a crime for you to refuse.

Doesn't appear it's going to turn out the way you think.

At least two officers involved have been put on administrative leave and United is reimbursing every passenger on that flight their airfare.

In response to being asked, "what did you think when you saw that video of a man being dragged off one of one of your planes?" Oscar Muñoz, United's CEO, answered, "Probably the word, 'ashamed,' comes to mind. This can never -- will never happen again on a United Airlines flight. That's my premise and that's my promise."

When asked, "do you think he's [David Dao] at fault in any way," Muñoz replied, "no. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting in our seat in our aircraft and no one should be traded that way." Muñoz continued, "to remove a booked, paid, seating passenger... we can't do that."

It seems everyone who knows better, knows you're wrong, except you.

All of which has nothing to do with Dao's breaking multiple Federal and State laws.

 

[rightwinger]

...I would prefer looking like a Liberal than an authoritarian nitwit.

Agreed, but here you are both. You want to force a business to do something that harms their business.

You have a remarkable ability to see things that you wish to see -- even if they don't exist. (There is a name for that condition but I don't wish to digress.)

I've suggested nothing more than the airline could have handled that situation in a far more intelligent, far less aggressive manner. It is they who resort to force as the primary approach to a situation. Not I.

You want the Feds to control the situation, not let market forces do it.

How did you arrive at this one? That is quite a mechanism you've got working there.

If he wants market forces to control the situation, why don't we let market forces get those people off the plane?

 

[rightwinger]

Possibly. What I do know is that there is too much money involved in bumping for it to go away.

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

That is why you don't run an airline

 

[ChrisL]

Possibly. What I do know is that there is too much money involved in bumping for it to go away.

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Other arrangements for the employees, of course. The passengers had already paid for their tickets, thereby securing their seats. What good is an airline if you can't depend on it?

 

[rightwinger]

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Other arrangements for the employees, of course. The passengers had already paid for their tickets, thereby securing their seats. What good is an airline if you can't depend on it?

At a major hub like Chicago O'Hare, United is capable of finding a small plane or helicopter to fly their people 300 miles. If not, there are over a dozen of charter airlines available

But it is just cheaper to kick off paying passengers

 

[Divine Wind]

There are a lot of rules regarding overbooking. The bad PR is enough for airlines to avoid it. In this case, it wasn't an overbooking issue; it was a last minute addition of crewmembers to salvage a morning flight that precipitated the problem.

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Other arrangements for the employees, of course. The passengers had already paid for their tickets, thereby securing their seats. What good is an airline if you can't depend on it?

If they make a habit of it, you are correct. However, weather events delay or cancel flights, crewmembers get sick and airplanes break. If those events happen too often to a particular airline, they certainly have a problem, but it can be expected to happen to all airlines at some point.

Although this incident was mishandled, putting 4 crewmembers on the plane was simply the airline trying to minimize passenger inconvenience and maximize profits....which often includes the same solution(s).