United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

[Westcoastwild]

Ya think? Their stock is tanking and the passenger has hired a high-priced attorney. Throw in the various consumer boycotts ramping up and United will be lucky to get out of this one without bankruptcy and a major buyout. The video was that horrible.

No airline should have the right to eject a passenger for any reason other than the safety of the other passengers and crew. No question. Weather and equipment delays can delay or disrupt travel, but this situation had nothing to do with either. Instead you had a callous airline staff who got caught treating their customers like unwanted cattle.

I only fly once or twice a year and that is exclusively on one airline (Southwest). I do that because I also travel with a power wheelchair and I have to zealously protect my wheels. Southwest has the better reputation for customer service and handling of disabled passengers. I just flew with them early Monday morning. They were absolute champs taking excellent care of me and my stuff. Yes, there have been issues over the years. (Once they broke my power chair when unloading it.) But they dealt with it by giving me a rental replacement, paying to fix the damage ASAP and giving me a travel voucher good for the next flight. I have not heard good things about United. You can bet I won't touch them with a 10 foot pole now.

I'm actually surprised anyone on this thread could ever have defended them or found fault with the passenger. Surely the videos made it clear this was an excessive use of force on a harmless person.

I've said several times that I don't like United. But the minute the guy refused to cooperate with security, he introduced the risk of being manhandled. Honestly, if anyone on a flight that I'm on refused to cooperate with flight staff or security, I don't want security to stand there and negotiate with the person. I want them off the plane. I think the extraction was badly done, but once he refused to be bumped, an extraction had to happen. He wasn't harmless once he chose not to cooperate. Because if they hadn't taken him off, he could have lashed out at the flight crew or a fellow passenger. Even if he reacted out of fear instead of rage, it doesn't make him less of a threat.

You just shouldn't talk back to the flight crew. I guess that's what it comes down to. It doesn't really matter what the reason is. If they make you mad, you can report them. But you can't refuse to cooperate. It puts the safety of everyone on that plane at risk.

 

[AliceAnn]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended." Thomas Jefferson
When this video first hit the internet a friend sent it to me saying it was frightening and could happen to any of us. I disagreed & said it could never happen to us because we would have done the right thing and gotten up to exit the plane on our own two feet.
Check out a couple other ill behaving Doctors: Dr. Anjali Ramkissoon .. lost it on an Uber driver. She told him "You don't know who the f**k you're messing with right now", apparently neither did her employer and when they found out, they canned her. And Dr. Rachel Wellner .. told the cop issuing her a parking ticket "I don't have time for this. I have to get to the hospital" (she actually had just left the hospital and was on her way home). She was also canned and is now trying her luck at standup comedy. I doubt Dr. Dao is going to have to worry about seeing patients ever again either.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Especially considering that the police were called AFTER he was off the aircraft and then ran back on with his hands in the air and acting somewhat irrational (perhaps understandable), but he RAN back on. It was then that police were called and he was removed. He ran back on because he learned, once off, that he would be delayed until the following afternoon.

I don't believe this is the correct sequence of events. He was forced off the plane by "police", or airport security, the first time around. That's when he hit his head and was dragged off. Later, he ran back on the plane, bloodied from hitting the armrest earlier. How he got away, no one seems to know. After that, passengers were all taken off the plane and a hazmat crew came in to clean up the blood.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-removed-from-united-flight-prompting-outcry

"Witnesses say passengers had already boarded on Sunday evening at O'Hare International Airport when United asked for volunteers to take another flight the next day to make room for four United staff members who needed seats.

The airline offered $400 and a free hotel, passenger Audra D. Bridges told the Louisville Courier-Journal. When no one volunteered, the offer was doubled to $800. When there were still no bites, the airline selected four passengers to leave the flight — including the man in the video and his wife.

"They told him he had been selected randomly to be taken off the flight," Bridges said on Facebook. She said there was no incident involving the man until he was told to give up his seat.

The man said he was a doctor and that he "needed to work at the hospital the next day," passenger Jayse D. Anspach said on Twitter.

"He said he wasn't going to [get off the plane]," Bridges wrote on Facebook. "He was talking to his lawyer on the phone."

Then United brought in security.

Both Bridges and Anspach posted videos of three security officers, who appear to be wearing the uniforms of Chicago aviation police, wrenching the man out of his seat, prompting wails. His face appeared to strike an armrest. Then they dragged his limp body down the aisle.

Footage shows the man was bleeding from the mouth as they dragged him away. His glasses were askew and his shirt was riding up over his belly.

"It looked like he was knocked out, because he went limp and quiet and they dragged him out of the plane like a rag doll," Anspach wrote.

"10mins later, the doctor runs back into the plane with a bloody face, clings to a post in the back, chanting, 'I need to go home,' " he said.

"@united has everyone on this flight fully distressed and fearful!!" @JohnK tweeted. He later sent out an update: "Just asked to leave plane so they can clean up blood from passenger."

After the cleanup, the passengers were allowed to reboard and fly to Louisville."

 

[mummabear]

I saw a man planning a lawsuit before anything went down.

Before anything went down? Or after United staff told him they were going to illegally remove him from the plane?

 

[Allison]

Here's another side to the story. https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress....thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

I wouldn't call it another side to the story. They have no first-hand experience with this incident. It's a bloggers perspective on the issue.

 

[Darcy03231]

United is one of the carriers at the airport near us (luckily not the only one). We would still fly them, depending on how good the flight times were and the price, but have been flying them less and less over the past several years due to poor customer service and overbooked flights, maybe one out of three flights and we travel frequently. In fact, my husband flies about once a month. We won't be flying with them again. I've cancelled my credit card with them and this morning when booking flights to go to a wedding in Costa Rica I picked another carrier, even though United had a better time and price.

 

[mnrose]

Before anything went down? Or after United staff told him they were going to illegally remove him from the plane?

What makes you think the removal was "illegal." Their contract of carriage pretty much gives them the LEGAL right to remove anyone for any reason. Now, if could have been morally wrong, and otherwise ill-advised, but it was not "illegal" if their contract gives them that right.

 

[design_mom]

What makes you think the removal was "illegal." Their contract of carriage pretty much gives them the LEGAL right to remove anyone for any reason. Now, if could have been morally wrong, and otherwise ill-advised, but it was not "illegal" if their contract gives them that right.

I am not the poster you quoted, but several of the analysts I've heard/read have said that they believe once the man was permitted to board the airplane, it no longer qualifies as an "involuntary denial of boarding" issue. At that point, it becomes a "refusal to transport" issue. There are reasons that they are legally allowed to refuse to transport you, but "we want your seat" isn't one of them.

(Failure to comply with the instructions of a crew member is a reason for refusal to transport, so that's where it's a grey area. Technically, he did fail to comply, but they may have been overstepping their bounds by asking in the first place.)

 

[Tinkerdreams]

The correct way to do this is before anyone boards. However, if any airline finds themselves in the same situation, I think that the future process should be to have EVERYONE get off the plane. Then at that point, they can proceed with the bumping. If people refuse to disembark, then the crew makes it clear until people are off, the flight goes nowhere.

 

[DopeyDame]

For those that say you should always comply with flight crew/other authorities: do you have a limit? What if the flight crew asked you to move seats to somewhere that would be a hardship for you (pretend you had a broken leg and were in an aisle seat, but they needed that seat for someone else and tried to put you in a window seat)? What if they asked you to do the chicken dance in the aisle for their amusement? What if they asked you to assist in removing a fellow passenger because the passenger didn't want to give up his seat?

From what I can glean from Google, the law isn't that you have to do anything the flight crew says. It's that you can't interfere with flight crew safely operating the plane. He was sitting in his seat, not interfering with diddly. And if you do interfere with flight crew, it's civil penalties, not a criminal case.

From http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-with-a-flight-attendant-or-crewmember.htm
the FAA can impose civil penalties (fines) for interfering with a crewmember who is performing official duties aboard an aircraft that is being operated. Almost any offensive or disruptive behavior that distracts the crew can be considered interference, such as:

• physically blocking a flight attendant from walking down the aisle or out of the galley
• disobeying repeated requests to sit down, return to your seat, or turn off an electronic device
• making threats to hurt a flight attendant, a pilot, or anyone else on the airplane, and
• from the ground, shining a laser beam into a cockpit.

And from: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-crime-to-disobey-a-flight-attendant
In the United States, 49 U.S. Code § 46504 applies. “An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

From this page, it's an interesting note that the Captain becomes in charge *once the cabin doors are closed* which clearly hadn't happened in this case: http://www.academia.edu/10359790/Following_Cabin_Crew_Instructions

When on a plane, the cabin crew and fight crew are the bosses In 5orth 6merica,once the cabin doors are closed the captain is recogni7ed under law as a (eace89cer and i" you do not "ollow their e0plicit instructions you can be met by lawen"orcement o9cers on the ground I" you do not "follow a fight attendant’s order,they report this to the captain and the same repercussions occur

 

[Hikergirl]

For those that say you should always comply with flight crew/other authorities: do you have a limit? What if the flight crew asked you to move seats to somewhere that would be a hardship for you (pretend you had a broken leg and were in an aisle seat, but they needed that seat for someone else and tried to put you in a window seat)? What if they asked you to do the chicken dance in the aisle for their amusement? What if they asked you to assist in removing a fellow passenger because the passenger didn't want to give up his seat?

My limit would be the hokey pokey. I always liked the chicken dance.
But really, aside from the hyperbole, I have no issues with complying if the request is reasonable.

 

[DopeyDame]

My limit would be the hokey pokey. I always liked the chicken dance.
But really, aside from the hyperbole, I have no issues with complying if the request is reasonable.

But that's my point: you do have a limit. You will comply with a *reasonable* request. As would most people. And what defines reasonable can vary a little from one person to another. Almost everyone will agree that "buckle your seatbelt" is a reasonable request. Almost everyone will agree that "do the hokey pokey" is not a reasonable request.

A reasonable person can think that giving up your seat when you've already paid, checked in, and boarded, isn't a reasonable request.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

For those that say you should always comply with flight crew/other authorities: do you have a limit? What if the flight crew asked you to move seats to somewhere that would be a hardship for you (pretend you had a broken leg and were in an aisle seat, but they needed that seat for someone else and tried to put you in a window seat)? What if they asked you to do the chicken dance in the aisle for their amusement? What if they asked you to assist in removing a fellow passenger because the passenger didn't want to give up his seat?

Here's another. What if the flight crew asked you to move seats (or actually reassigned your seat) because you're a woman and there were men who, because of their cultural beliefs, didn't want to sit next to you?

This actually happened on United last fall!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...cause-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/

"Mary Campos says her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.

A a million-mile flier, Campos — a mom who lives in Coto de Caza — said she thought she’d seen it all.

Until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.

“He said this is your new seat,” Campos said, “And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this'”

She said she continued by saying, “Yes?”

And the agent told her, “The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females."

That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.

She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again."

It would be interesting to know how she was chosen. (Probably location, but she is a frequent flier.)

And the CEO apparently blew her off.

Yeah. At this point, I'm done with United.

 

[DizBelle]

The idea that air crew have supreme authority and that we should do anything they say without question is also ridiculous.

I agree with many of the things that I would do when asked, put on my shoes, sit down/return to my seat, put on my seatbelt etc these are all safety issues for myself and/or others.

You mentioned if you were asked to switch seat so a parent and child could sit together, I personally would do this where it wasn't splitting me from my own but I have seen in other threads here on the DIS many wouldnt do that because they paid for that seat, or preferred boarding etc

I think there's a difference between doing what the crew says when the plane is in the air vs. when the plane is on the ground still at the gate.

 

[twinklebug]

Here's another. What if the flight crew asked you to move seats (or actually reassigned your seat) because you're a woman and there were men who, because of their cultural beliefs, didn't want to sit next to you?

This actually happened on United last fall!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...cause-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/

"Mary Campos says her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.

A a million-mile flier, Campos — a mom who lives in Coto de Caza — said she thought she’d seen it all.

Until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.

“He said this is your new seat,” Campos said, “And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this'”

She said she continued by saying, “Yes?”

And the agent told her, “The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females."

That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.

She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again."

It would be interesting to know how she was chosen. (Probably location, but she is a frequent flier.)

And the CEO apparently blew her off.

Yeah. At this point, I'm done with United.

Oh, that's a winner in the stupid reasons to change someone's flight accommodations for sure. I can understand cultural beliefs preventing the two men from wanting to sit near her & rub elbows with her. (Hey, who am I to judge. My religion puts chocolate eggs in Easter baskets, LOL.) However, the proper thing to do would to be to tell the two men that they knowingly booked those seats on a public flight, knowing that anyone including a woman could be seated in their row. Their options would be 1) They can move rows, and there may be none available that would suit them, or 2) better yet, book an entire isle to themselves on another flight.

Following from #2 above, if a flight is full and someone has booked and paid for an extra seat for any number of reasons (size, assistance dog, space), does the flight crew have the right to take that seat away?

 

[Westcoastwild]

Here's another. What if the flight crew asked you to move seats (or actually reassigned your seat) because you're a woman and there were men who, because of their cultural beliefs, didn't want to sit next to you?

This actually happened on United last fall!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...cause-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/

"Mary Campos says her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.

A a million-mile flier, Campos — a mom who lives in Coto de Caza — said she thought she’d seen it all.

Until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.

“He said this is your new seat,” Campos said, “And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this'”

She said she continued by saying, “Yes?”

And the agent told her, “The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females."

That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.

She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again."

It would be interesting to know how she was chosen. (Probably location, but she is a frequent flier.)

And the CEO apparently blew her off.

Yeah. At this point, I'm done with United.

Ha! Yeah, that sounds like the United I know and so don't love. The gate agent took the path of least resistance. Under Terms and Conditions they can move you for whatever reason. Sometimes they do this because it's necessay (minors) but often they do this because the other passenger looked like a bigger pest than you. Usually they ask but they don't actually have to.

I thought that was going to happen one flight. An older lady was twittering on about how her injury was so awkward and how it would be so much healthier for her to sit in the bulk head seat. But the people in those seats were a mother and toddler and me. I avoided eye contact and the twittering lady annoyed the flight attendant enough that he didn't bother pressing me over it.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Oh, that's a winner in the stupid reasons to change someone's flight accommodations for sure. I can understand cultural beliefs preventing the two men from wanting to sit near her & rub elbows with her. (Hey, who am I to judge. My religion puts chocolate eggs in Easter baskets, LOL.) However, the proper thing to do would to be to tell the two men that they knowingly booked those seats on a public flight, knowing that anyone including a woman could be a woman seated in their row. Their options wouild be 1) They can move rows, and there may be none available that would suit them, or 2) better yet, book an entire isle to themselves on another flight.

Following from #2 above, if a flight is full and someone has booked and paid for an extra seat for any number of reasons (size, assistance dog, space), does the flight crew have the right to take that seat away?

And yes, we've already talked that to death. They will fill empty seats with standbys if you don't have a REALLY good reason to block it, like a baby, a service dog, or a wedding dress. Can't do it for extra space, if one of your party is a no show, they will fill it.

 

[pryncess527]

I've said several times that I don't like United. But the minute the guy refused to cooperate with security, he introduced the risk of being manhandled. Honestly, if anyone on a flight that I'm on refused to cooperate with flight staff or security, I don't want security to stand there and negotiate with the person. I want them off the plane. I think the extraction was badly done, but once he refused to be bumped, an extraction had to happen. He wasn't harmless once he chose not to cooperate. Because if they hadn't taken him off, he could have lashed out at the flight crew or a fellow passenger. Even if he reacted out of fear instead of rage, it doesn't make him less of a threat.

You just shouldn't talk back to the flight crew. I guess that's what it comes down to. It doesn't really matter what the reason is. If they make you mad, you can report them. But you can't refuse to cooperate. It puts the safety of everyone on that plane at risk.

Yes, but they must be REASONABLE in their use of force. I think the video clearly shows nothing about that removal was by the book. That's the point. Yes, he should have complied -- but the amount of force I saw on that film was NOT justified or reasonable given the situation. There are techniques for removing people who are being irrational that would be far less likely to induce the kind of injuries he sustained.

Just because a police act is necessary, doesn't mean they get to use any level of force. They are supposed to DE-ESCALATE situations. Nothing about that was de-escalation. That man was not complying, but he was not threatening or presenting a danger either. He could have been handled with more dignity.

. The policy already existed. Where was the outrage then?

I think most of us knew we could be bumped. That is not the issue.

Few of us knew that we could be FORCED TO DEPLANE AFTER BOARDING AND NOT ALLOWED BACK ON DUE TO SPACE. Do you not see how that is drastically different? I thought when I was on the plane I was safe. Now I have to wait for take-off to know I'm going to get where I"m going? Not okay (and hopefully already illegal, as details are starting to suggest)

 

[Westcoastwild]

Yes, but they must be REASONABLE in their use of force. I think the video clearly shows nothing about that removal was by the book. That's the point. Yes, he should have complied -- but the amount of force I saw on that film was NOT justified or reasonable given the situation. There are techniques for removing people who are being irrational that would be far less likely to induce the kind of injuries he sustained.

Just because a police act is necessary, doesn't mean they get to use any level of force. They are supposed to DE-ESCALATE situations. Nothing about that was de-escalation. That man was not complying, but he was not threatening or presenting a danger either. He could have been handled with more dignity.



I think most of us knew we could be bumped. That is not the issue.

Few of us knew that we could be FORCED TO DEPLANE AFTER BOARDING. Do you not see how that is drastically different? I thought when I was on the plane I was safe. Now I have to wait for take-off to know I'm going to get where I"m going? Not okay (and hopefully already illegal, as details are starting to suggest)

I do see how it's different. But I never rest easy until we take off. My flights have been boarded and unboarded and re boarded so many times I don't count on taking off until we are actually taxiing. I've been on flights that board 45 minutes early and yet still get off the ground an hour late.

 

[pryncess527]

I've been boarded and unboarded before. i've never been unboarded with the threat that I would not be allowed back on due to space.