United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

[amberpi]

I wish there would be an outcry among the flying public -- like there was about parking a plane full of people on the runway indefinitely -- that these policies need to change.

Allow overbooking within reason, but have the compensation for bumping be the MARKET PRICE set by the customers on that flight.

Any airlines paying through the nose on these bumps will MAGICALLY fix their problems to be competitive.

Remember when Jet Blue left those people on the tarmac forever? I enjoyed their service out of Nashville but they discontinued the service and I *think* it overlapped with that incident. People didn't want to get stuck and it did impact the airline for several years and led to a more specific bill of passenger rights. I think Jet Blue learned a lot from it, and the flying public did speak with their dollars, that's all we've got.

 

[amberpi]

A lot of posters keep mentioning "maximum" compensation. There are DOT regulations that say "maximum of $1350" but would United really be prohibited from offering $1500 or $2000 if that's what it took to get "volunteers"?

I still can't tell that they ever switched to a cash offer, which they could most certainly have done.

 

[LISAMWDW]

This happens all the time, bumping passengers for oversold/crew travel etc. However, United never should have let passengers board until the situation was resolved. How they handled it was horrible!

I can't imagine how that man felt being told to leave the plane. Having said that, if I was in that position, I would have handled it with more dignity, even though the airline was in the wrong. But, he sure is bringing attention to how airlines treat their customers, so that is a good thing!

 

[Albort]

That's what I thought based on tons of experience - if you're on the plane they can't bump you involuntarily outside of safety/disorderly conduct thing. Thank you for posting this!

it leaves it out on the grey area imo. Theres no policy on what to do after the fact that everyone is boarded.

However, it seems to me United will win. Currently, they basically giving the man thrown out a bad image. the CEO called him disruptive, people now diggin through his past saying hes a drug sex addict. Therefore, the pilots/FA will say its a safety issue.

like one guy said:
FA: you need to get off the plane.
man: No
FA: u are now disruptive to the flight and will be removed off the flight now.

Its bad policy, and im sure DOT will make changes to rulings to help protect consumers and companies.

 

[AustinTink]

So the smear campaign on the doctor has already started. You know United's PR machine is working overtime to turn this into something else other than their blatant incompetence. I'm not going to link the article here, because I can't believe they dug up dirt on this poor guy. But, it's out there and easy to google. United has sunk to a new low if they are behind the news coming out today about the doctor sordid past.

 

[bcla]

A lot of posters keep mentioning "maximum" compensation. There are DOT regulations that say "maximum of $1350" but would United really be prohibited from offering $1500 or $2000 if that's what it took to get "volunteers"?

That's for an involuntary bump, but it can be in a cash equivalent. It's usually travel vouchers for voluntary bumps which aren't regulated.

 

[twinklebug]

That's for an involuntary bump, but it can be in a cash equivalent. It's usually travel vouchers for voluntary bumps which aren't regulated.

I believe gift cards are not regulated either, AMEX gift cards are the preferred currency here ;-)

 

[DopeyDame]

A lot of posters keep mentioning "maximum" compensation. There are DOT regulations that say "maximum of $1350" but would United really be prohibited from offering $1500 or $2000 if that's what it took to get "volunteers"?

The max is the compensation that passengers are entitled to if they get involuntarily denied boarding. So basically, as a passenger, you can't expect more than that if you are bumped. But there is nothing at all, as far as I know, that prevents an airline from offering more to get volunteers before they resort to involuntary bumping.
And as a few others have pointed out, to a lot of people on the plane, there is a huge difference between airline credit and cash. $800 in vouchers didn't get them the volunteers they needed. $1350 in cash is very different, and may well have done the job.

 

[LAB81018]

What if your dad had an appointment with this doctor the next day, and ended up getting sick or dying because he couldn't be seen?

What if your dad got sick and ended up dying because his doctor was on the plane these United crew members were needed on?

This could go on and on.

 

[Albort]

Perhaps honesty would have been the best policy for UA?

Take $800, or we will have to remove four of you at random. And if you don't willingly "re accommodate", we will call the cops to forcibly remove you.

Didn't realize this plane was flying out of the CCCP.

its also the spur of the moment too. They boarded, then the crew finds out they needed 4 open seats. the offer of $800 was done in the plane, no at the gate. Im sure no one wanted it because after wasting 3 hours at the airport, everyone just wanted to go home. totally understandable imo.

Someone on reddit said that someone one the plane would give up their seat for $1600. The UA crew just laughed at the offer. Which makes me believe if they kept raising the price, someone would had bite eventually.

 

[bcla]

So the smear campaign on the doctor has already started. You know United's PR machine is working overtime to turn this into something else other than their blatant incompetence. I'm not going to link the article here, because I can't believe they dug up dirt on this poor guy. But, it's out there and easy to google. United has sunk to a new low if they are behind the news coming out today about the doctor sordid past.

This is a big story, and it's easy enough for various bloggers and netizens to dig up all this rather public information. A lot of it was already in his public record with the medical board. Once someone found out his name, this was bound to come out. Don't know if United was involved in any of this, but I doubt that they had to do anything for his salacious details to make the news.

 

[NotUrsula]

I had an ugly experience with AA some years ago that also involved moving crew; nothing this bad, but still pretty unpleasant. This was when my DS was 2 years old. We were dealing with a family emergency and were flying on a last-minute airfare that didn't include advance seat-assignments, so we were told to get to the gate 3 hours before boarding to get seats assigned. We did that, and because DS was 2, needed at least one contiguous seat; we didn't care where the seat was. When we arrived we were told that he would have to sit alone because there were no pairs left anywhere on the plane, only middle seats. Keep in mind this was 3 hours before boarding; so they had no idea if there were going to be no-shows at this point, but they were adamant that we were sitting in separated middles and there was no other option. When we board the plane, I'm in a middle with DS in the middle in front of me, which they claimed was the best they could do. As you might imagine, when the passenger seated in the window seat in DS' row realized he was going to be sitting next to a 2 yo whose parent could not reach him if the seatbelt sign was on, he volunteered to sit in my middle seat in seconds, so we switched. That's when it got interesting. Seated next to me on the aisle was a uniformed pilot. After the seat shuffle, he wondered why they hadn't given me the middle and aisle in that row. I told him what was said, and he told me that he only received his work assignment 1 hour before boarding, and that that was true of ALL 18 DEADHEADING CREW MEMBERS on the aircraft! Seems that AA policy is to always put deadheading crew members on the aisles so that they can help quickly in the event of an emergency. Fair enough, but 18 blocked off aisle seats, when a paying passenger needed to sit next to a young child who was also a paying passenger, and who had shown up at the gate a full 2 hours before the airline decided to put those crew on the plane?

I think that the simple answer to this issue is for Congress to pass a regulation that says that paying passengers cannot be involuntarily bumped to accommodate employees unless a certain advance time frame is met. Two hours before boarding seems pretty fair to me. In most cases that would allow for alternate bookings to be made that would mitigate the hardship for passengers.

I looked up the UAL flight that this incident happened on, 3411. According to the schedule, that is not their last flight out on Sunday; there is normally another one that leaves later. I have not heard why the final flight of the evening was not an option (apparently it was cancelled?), but ORD had two other flights on the schedule headed for Louisville on Sunday that departed after this one; one on Delta and one on AA. In addition, there was also an evening flight scheduled on SWA out of MDW. It should have been a simple matter to pay one of those airlines to take the crew member.

 

[TropicalDIS]

it leaves it out on the grey area imo. Theres no policy on what to do after the fact that everyone is boarded.

However, it seems to me United will win. Currently, they basically giving the man thrown out a bad image. the CEO called him disruptive, people now diggin through his past saying hes a drug sex addict. Therefore, the pilots/FA will say its a safety issue.

like one guy said:
FA: you need to get off the plane.
man: No
FA: u are now disruptive to the flight and will be removed off the flight now.

Its bad policy, and im sure DOT will make changes to rulings to help protect consumers and companies.

You hit the nail on the head. This will change the policy/contract for airline travel in the future.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Wow, it took me forever to catch up to the end of this thread!

While mistakes were on made in multiple places, and I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, I think the problem at the base of all this is simple greed.

The airlines have put these bumping rules in place so they can sell more seats than they have. They know most of us will take the chance rather than spend half of our vacation in a car (or never read the fine print at all) and that when they do get caught, they can usually buy their way out of it with volunteers - but it's still plain dishonest, and I think it should be changed.

 

[pryncess527]

So this is my understanding of the post I was reading from a totally anonymous stranger on a random internet board, so please don't take this as any kind of fact:
But basically, he was saying that the prime directive *on board* the plane is to remove the person. Once they are back inside the airport, then they hash out the details and determine if an arrest is necessary or not. But that on the plane, they don't override a captain's judgement about a passenger removal. (Which makes sense, you don't want the two authorities in the cockpit having some sort of pissing contest about what constitutes a legit reason for removal.) There are certainly reasons to be removed from the plane which aren't actually illegal and worthy of arrest.

Sure, but there aren't reasons to assault someone. That was my point -- They tried to remove him. he resisted. At that point, an arrest for failure to comply would provide a bit more legal cover, and reasonable explanation, for the way he was manhandled after that point.

 

[Babs Johnson]

A lot of posters keep mentioning "maximum" compensation. There are DOT regulations that say "maximum of $1350" but would United really be prohibited from offering $1500 or $2000 if that's what it took to get "volunteers"?

The $1350 is the max for passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily. An airline can offer whatever they want, however high, to entice volunteers. There is no prohibition against it.

####################################################################################################################

Oh boy, United does seem to have a special talent for shooting themselves in the foot, huh?

Yeah, yeah, what transpired was probably all legal and by the book, but like I mentioned in the Leggingsgate thread, facts and reality don't matter. Perception does, and there's really no way to spin this incident in a positive manner.

Denying those four passengers BEFORE boarding would have been OK. Crappy for the four involved, but life sucks sometimes. But after being cleared to board? That's really an unacceptable
thing to do to customers.

OK, four deadheading crew members show up at the last minute. I get it, sometimes things like this happen, but that's poor planning on United's part. Not the passengers' problem. If it was REALLY vital for those crew members to board (and I'm sure there were alternative methods to get them to Louisville), United needed to stop playing by the book. Offer whatever it takes to get four people to volunteer to leave. With $3 billion in profits last year, United could afford to up the ante to at least $1500 or $2000, where there probably would have been takers. If not, keep raising the offer. Eventually 4 people will accept.

As for the police, there was no reason for them to even get involved. This was a customer service issue. Yes, the police should have responded when United called, but they should have assessed the situation and told United to deal with it themselves.

It seems as if some knucklehead at United watched the Pepsi commercial last week or the Delta operational meltdown over the weekend and said, "Hey, I can top that. Hold my beer and watch this!!"

 

[amberpi]

it leaves it out on the grey area imo. Theres no policy on what to do after the fact that everyone is boarded.

However, it seems to me United will win. Currently, they basically giving the man thrown out a bad image. the CEO called him disruptive, people now diggin through his past saying hes a drug sex addict. Therefore, the pilots/FA will say its a safety issue.

like one guy said:
FA: you need to get off the plane.
man: No
FA: u are now disruptive to the flight and will be removed off the flight now.

Its bad policy, and im sure DOT will make changes to rulings to help protect consumers and companies.

Pretty much all my friends are frequent travelers for work (that's how I know most of them) and all of them are done with United. United is going to lose in marketshare, regardless of what any specifics are of this guy, or the outcome of any legal proceedings. They FORCIBLY removed a boarded passenger, among bus travelers that's a whole ton of nope. I went 50 posts of just people complaining in my FB become their was an interruption. United stock was down 6% preopen and has bounced, but stays lower than that.

 

[bcla]

The airlines have put these bumping rules in place so they can sell more seats than they have. They know most of us will take the chance rather than spend half of our vacation in a car (or never read the fine print at all) and that when they do get caught, they can usually buy their way out of it with volunteers - but it's still plain dishonest, and I think it should be changed.

I mentioned it earlier, but overbooking has always been a thing because of unrestricted fares. It's an inherent consequence when passengers are allowed to cancel or change without penalty, or even when allowed to cancel or change with penalty.

The alternative would be no possibility of changing or cancelling past the one-day mandated period, and elimination of unrestricted fare. Possibly eliminating standby on a later flight for a passenger late to the gate. It would throw out the whole leisure fare vs business travel dynamic that makes it affordable for most people to fly on vacation.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

With his arrests and past transgressions notwithstanding, I can't help but wonder if this passenger's cultural history (as well as perhaps his criminal history) influenced his "freak out". My math could be off, but I believe his age would put him as growing up in Vietnam during a difficult era there. (He went to medical school in Vietnam, so he must've come to live in the U.S. some time after that.) Given the treatment of people there at that time, it's not hard to understand why, even today, he might be frightened of "uniformed authorities taking him away" (when he knew he did nothing wrong). If we want to include his more recent history, it appears he got his medical license re-instated rather recently, after going through quite a bit to get it back, and no doubt he was fearful about missing work; perhaps he didn't want to rock the boat at work if he were returning from a vacation or something. (Heck, we've been in that situation ourselves where DH would be in hot water if he didn't make it back on time.) Not saying this guy is an angel, just trying to see it from his possible perspective. I read that he was saying, "Just kill me" over and over when the police were taking him away. He also ran back onto the plane all bloodied after being taken off before - who knows how, but that doesn't seem like a rational thing to do for most of us. Possibilities include being dazed from hitting head, background and desperation, or hopefully not, but also a possiblity, is ongoing drug use, but who knows. I suppose we will learn more as time goes on. I will never forget going in to wake a patient up in the middle of the night one time. He grabbed my arm very forcefully and scared me half to death, I thought he was going to hit me. Turned out he was a POW in Vietnam. We went on to become great friends, but he told me not to ever do that again because of his history. I guess that's what I'm thinking with this guy. A traumatic background could've influenced his behavior.

 

[DisBabe94]

The $1350 is the max for passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily. An airline can offer whatever they want, however high, to entice volunteers. There is no prohibition against it.

####################################################################################################################

Oh boy, United does seem to have a special talent for shooting themselves in the foot, huh?

Yeah, yeah, what transpired was probably all legal and by the book, but like I mentioned in the Leggingsgate thread, facts and reality don't matter. Perception does, and there's really no way to spin this incident in a positive manner.

Denying those four passengers BEFORE boarding would have been OK. Crappy for the four involved, but life sucks sometimes. But after being cleared to board? That's really an unacceptable
thing to do to customers.

OK, four deadheading crew members show up at the last minute. I get it, sometimes things like this happen, but that's poor planning on United's part. Not the passengers' problem. If it was REALLY vital for those crew members to board (and I'm sure there were alternative methods to get them to Louisville), United needed to stop playing by the book. Offer whatever it takes to get four people to volunteer to leave. With $3 billion in profits last year, United could afford to up the ante to at least $1500 or $2000, where there probably would have been takers. If not, keep raising the offer. Eventually 4 people will accept.

As for the police, there was no reason for them to even get involved. This was a customer service issue. Yes, the police should have responded when United called, but they should have assessed the situation and told United to deal with it themselves.

It seems as if some knucklehead at United watched the Pepsi commercial last week or the Delta operational meltdown over the weekend and said, "Hey, I can top that. Hold my beer and watch this!!"

Oh Completely!! I have mentioned this a few time but I am baffled at the decision United made to get the authorities involved at all. It's like they didn't even stop to think that this man and everyone on board are CUSTOMERS of their business! To them we are just "self-loading cargo"