United Airlines Forces Man off of oversold flight

[bcla]

To the bolded, my post said nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you can turn "sometimes acting like an adult means sticking up for yourself" into " being an adult isn't always about whether or not the world is fair"
Of course the world isn't always fair. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes acting like an adult means standing up for yourself.
The police question is very vague and really not relevant. It's clearly meant as a "gotcha" question but it actually has little to do with "sometimes adult behavior is to stick up for yourself". I didn't say adults need to * always* stick up for themselves and *always* question what is asked of them.

The police had every right to remove him in that case. That they screwed up the removal doesn't change that. It's part of their job to remove someone off a plane if requested by the airline. That's the same for other forms of transportation like trains. Heck - we had a local case where a group on a tourist railroad were accused of being disruptive and were set off by the conductor. He didn't forcibly remove them, but called for the local police to meet them at the next stop to escort them out. It didn't matter if what they did was or wasn't worthy of being ejected, and it wasn't up to the police to determine if the removal was justified. This group in fact sued the railroad and got some sort of settlement, but that didn't change that the police had no say about removing them. They did cooperate though in leaving the train.

Depends. if I am pulled over while driving he has the right to request that.
if he stops me on the street and asks to see my license, I will refuse.

In most states, there may be no legal requirement to submit to an ID check just out of the blue on the street. However, if a peace officer suspects someone of committing a crime or even a minor violation worthy of a simple citation, they must ascertain identity. There's a legal right in that case to detain or even take someone to a police station in order to verify identity. It's one thing to assert one's rights, but another to press on for "rights" that don't exist in every case.

 

[Gracie09]

The police had every right to remove him in that case. That they screwed up the removal doesn't change that. It's part of their job to remove someone off a plane if requested by the airline. That's the same for other forms of transportation like trains. Heck - we had a local case where a group on a tourist railroad were accused of being disruptive and were set off by the conductor. He didn't forcibly remove them, but called for the local police to meet them at the next stop to escort them out. It didn't matter if what they did was or wasn't worthy of being ejected, and it wasn't up to the police to determine if the removal was justified. This group in fact sued the railroad and got some sort of settlement, but that didn't change that the police had no say about removing them. They did cooperate though in leaving the train.



In most states, there may be no legal requirement to submit to an ID check just out of the blue on the street. However, if a peace officer suspects someone of committing a crime or even a minor violation worthy of a simple citation, they must ascertain identity. There's a legal right in that case to detain or even take someone to a police station in order to verify identity. It's one thing to assert one's rights, but another to press on for "rights" that don't exist in every case.

They have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime or violation has been committed. Walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion. There is no requirement to carry id if I am walking down the street or even taking most forms of public transportation.
Although yesterday the NY/NJ Port Authority, whose police patrol the 3 major NY city area airports said they will no longer assist airlines in ejecting passengers. Chicago, where this happened said the same thing.

 

[Westcoastwild]

To the bolded, my post said nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you can turn "sometimes acting like an adult means sticking up for yourself" into " being an adult isn't always about whether or not the world is fair"
Of course the world isn't always fair. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes acting like an adult means standing up for yourself.
The police question is very vague and really not relevant. It's clearly meant as a "gotcha" question but it actually has little to do with "sometimes adult behavior is to stick up for yourself". I didn't say adults need to * always* stick up for themselves and *always* question what is asked of them.

I don't see how my example was vague. My argument is that when it gets to the point security is called, you cooperate. If you get pulled over by a cop, you cooperate. Have you ever managed to argue a police officer into not giving you a ticket? Ever managed to argue with airport security and gotten your way? I'm thinking not. I'm still annoyed that TSA made me throw out a very tiny snow globe once because of the liquid rule. But they could have denied me entrance if I had not cooperated. Do I think it was fair? No. But it was legal. And no one here has fully determined that UA did not have the legal right to deplane him. That's what this comes down to. It is illegal to not cooperate with airport security. It is probably NOT illegal for UA to deplane a passenger for any reason.

I doubt this will go to court at all. But I wouldn't be surprised if the court system punished the security but NOT United if it did. The only thing that will happen to United is in the court of public opinion.

 

[quandrea]

Absolutely true. But refusal to provide them with your license and registration, refusal to keep both hands in sight, results in being dragged out of your car and arrested. So I suppose there is some kind of self righteousness in refusing but cooperating means a ticket you can contest later and continuing on your way. Refusal means arrest, probably a search of your car, and almost certainly a more expensive ticket. Which one makes more sense?

Not saying I would refuse but I want to know why I'm being pulled over. In Canada we call it carding and it's not allowed.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I don't see how my example was vague. My argument is that when it gets to the point security is called, you cooperate. If you get pulled over by a cop, you cooperate. Have you ever managed to argue a police officer into not giving you a ticket? Ever managed to argue with airport security and gotten your way? I'm thinking not. I'm still annoyed that TSA made me throw out a very tiny snow globe once because of the liquid rule. But they could have denied me entrance if I had not cooperated. Do I think it was fair? No. But it was legal. And no one here has fully determined that UA did not have the legal right to deplane him. That's what this comes down to. It is illegal to not cooperate with airport security. It is probably NOT illegal for UA to deplane a passenger for any reason.

I doubt this will go to court at all. But I wouldn't be surprised if the court system punished the security but NOT United if it did. The only thing that will happen to United is in the court of public opinion.

You didn't say pulled over, you just said stops. You don't have to be driving for a cop to stop you.
Arguing with the TSA over a snow globe would not be a good example of doing the adult thing and sticking up for yourself. You can give plenty of examples of when one shouldn't take a stand but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes taking a stand is an adult thing to do.
Airlines employees are given authority over their passengers for the safety of all on the plane, including the crew. It's an abuse of that authority to use it to kick seated passengers off the plane because they want to give the seat to someone else. They are given authority because of safety issues and, at least in this case, abused it because of a money issue.

 

[Westcoastwild]

They have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime or violation has been committed. Walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion. There is no requirement to carry id if I am walking down the street or even taking most forms of public transportation.
Although yesterday the NY/NJ Port Authority, whose police patrol the 3 major NY city area airports said they will no longer assist airlines in ejecting passengers. Chicago, where this happened said the same thing.

Not saying I would refuse but I want to know why I'm being pulled over. In Canada we call it carding and it's not allowed.

Yeah. They have to tell you why you're being pulled over. I've been pulled over for stuff I didn't do before. But even after they are satisified that you didn't break the law, they will still ask for your license and registration. This guy did know why he was getting deplaned. They did explain the process. They didn't treat him differently than the other people who were deplaned until he refused to move.

 

[bcla]

They have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime or violation has been committed. Walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion. There is no requirement to carry id if I am walking down the street or even taking most forms of public transportation.
Although yesterday the NY/NJ Port Authority, whose police patrol the 3 major NY city area airports said they will no longer assist airlines in ejecting passengers. Chicago, where this happened said the same thing.

The suspected violation could be fairly minor to the point where someone may question why they're being detained. Something as a simple as playing music too loud or eating on a bus can result in being put off, but it's generally considered minor. But if the driver says get off and the passenger refuses, they will send whatever law enforcement they have and removal is justified.

As for PANYNJ, what I read is that they never said they wouldn't help eject a passenger, but that they would ask what the reason is, and refuse if it's a case of overbooking or something similar to the Chicago case. It sounds like they would still do it if a captain wants a passenger off a plane for any number of reasons as long as it's not to place someone else on the plane.

 

[Westcoastwild]

You didn't say pulled over, you just said stops. You don't have to be driving for a cop to stop you.
Arguing with the TSA over a snow globe would not be a good example of doing the adult thing and sticking up for yourself. You can give plenty of examples of when one shouldn't take a stand but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes taking a stand is an adult thing to do.
Airlines employees are given authority over their passengers for the safety of all on the plane, including the crew. It's an abuse of that authority to use it to kick seated passengers off the plane because they want to give the seat to someone else. They are given authority because of safety issues and, at least in this case, abused it because of a money issue.

But they do overselling and bumping all of the time. It's a money issue. They haven't admitted they were wrong in that. They aren't even saying they WON'T involuntarily bump a passenger again. Even Delta and the other airlines who are mocking them for this are NOT saying they were wrong to oversell or bump to put their crew on. They're saying United handled it poorly.

 

[sunshinehighway]

The suspected violation could be fairly minor to the point where someone may question why they're being detained. Something as a simple as playing music too loud or eating on a bus can result in being put off, but it's generally considered minor. But if the driver says get off and the passenger refuses, they will send whatever law enforcement they have and removal is justified.

As for PANYNJ, what I read is that they never said they wouldn't help eject a passenger, but that they would ask what the reason is, and refuse if it's a case of overbooking or something similar to the Chicago case. It sounds like they would still do it if a captain wants a passenger off a plane for any number of reasons as long as it's not to place someone else on the plane.

And that change is because this man didn't just quietly comply. He stood up for himself and that resulted in at least some policy review and change.

 

[bcla]

But they do overselling and bumping all of the time. It's a money issue. They haven't admitted they were wrong in that. They aren't even saying they WON'T involuntarily bump a passenger again. Even Delta and the other airlines who are mocking them for this are NOT saying they were wrong to oversell or bump to put their crew on. They're saying United handled it poorly.

Certainly this case isn't going to stop overbooking. A relative of mine used to be a travel agent, and overbooking has been done since forever, even before complex "revenue management" software. Heck - back then there might not even have been a very good system for determining how many reservations were booked, and chaos ensued when the number of actual ticketed passengers finally showed up at the airport.

Overbooking is typically handled at check in when the first requests are made for volunteers and usually gets settled at the gate before any passenger boards the plane. That they tried to handle it after the passengers had boarded was a rather rare case.

 

[Gracie09]

The suspected violation could be fairly minor to the point where someone may question why they're being detained. Something as a simple as playing music too loud or eating on a bus can result in being put off, but it's generally considered minor. But if the driver says get off and the passenger refuses, they will send whatever law enforcement they have and removal is justified.

As for PANYNJ, what I read is that they never said they wouldn't help eject a passenger, but that they would ask what the reason is, and refuse if it's a case of overbooking or something similar to the Chicago case. It sounds like they would still do it if a captain wants a passenger off a plane for any number of reasons as long as it's not to place someone else on the plane.

right - we are talking about a passenger who was removed due to overbooking and that is all. He was not drunk, abusive or otherwise causing an issue. He just said no.

Although they did say they will decide about other matters on a case by case basis.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_cops_wont_pull_passengers_off_overb.html

 

[bcla]

right - we are talking about a passenger who was removed due to overbooking and that is all. He was not drunk, abusive or otherwise causing an issue. He just said no.

Although they did say they will decide about other matters on a case by case basis.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_cops_wont_pull_passengers_off_overb.html

You still don't want a case where the police are charged with determining if the airline is justified in requesting a removal. Of course with the new guidelines they're going to refuse if it's overbooking case, but it gets more complicated if it is something the airline feels is justified, but the passenger feels is not. If a couple of passengers get into a mild argument and the crew wants them off, those passengers may feel that it's unjustified and refuse to leave. This type of case is far more common than overbooking, but with this United case in the news I'm not sure if more people will be emboldened to ignore orders to get off a plane believing that the police have no legal authority to do so.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

right - we are talking about a passenger who was removed due to overbooking and that is all. He was not drunk, abusive or otherwise causing an issue. He just said no.

Although they did say they will decide about other matters on a case by case basis.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_cops_wont_pull_passengers_off_overb.html

It wasn't even overbooking. There were enough seats. That is why he was able to board.

They wanted him to move for someone that wasn't booked. So he wasn't moved due to overbooking, he was moved to save United money.

 

[pryncess527]

It wasn't even overbooking. There were enough seats. That is why he was able to board.

They wanted him to move for someone that wasn't booked. So he wasn't moved due to overbooking, he was moved to save United money.

Which, according to some legal experts, may be all the difference as to whether they broke Contract of Carriage or not. I have seen several lawyers suggest that bumping for employees is NOT as flexible as the rules for bumping due to overbooking.

 

[mummabear]

Come on. 2 teeth and a broken nose? That's pretty minor surgery

My mother broke her nose in a car accident, it had to be reconstructed. This is not minor surgery.

i don't buy that argument. Do you argue if a policeman stops you and asks you to show license and registration? Being an adult isn't always about whether or not the world is fair. It's about choosing the right way to react to a given solution. Arguing with security and refusing to move was not a mature choice.

Again you seem very keen to push blame on this passenger, and put him down for "not acting like an adult"
Sometimes adults need to make a stand. He was calm while refusing their request, and its United that keep calling it a request, a request can be declined.

Not me. I wouldn't want to be dragged off a plane, have teeth knocked out and suffer a possible concussion for any amount of money.

Sorry I couldn't find the post you were quoting.
My Aunt got hit in the head with one of those hammock swings over 4 years ago, hard enough to make a really good noise but she didn't loose consciousness. She started falling over and having blinding headaches. Turned out not only did she have a concussion she had also had a plate in her skull pressed/moved. She has been through years of treatments:hypobaric chambers, osteopaths etc, under the advisement of her head trauma specialist and still it effects her daily. If. It's too hot, too cold, noisy etc all leaves her needing to go lie down. She has gone from an active/fit person to someone who can only just manage a gentle walk.
This man may recover from his injuries in the next couple of months but it is entirely possible he could be dealing with this for years making a significantly negative impact on his life.
I personally would not wish to be in his place for any amount of money.

 

[mummabear]

And now a statement from the United Pilot's Union:

FULL STATEMENT FROM UNITED AIRLINES PILOTS UNION

'As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated. The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter.

United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.

'It is important to review these baseline facts:

'1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.

'2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.

'3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.

'4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.

'5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.

'On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.

'For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.

'Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.

'United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.

'Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.'

Way to try to deflect blame there.

 

[Monykalyn]

To those arguing that the guy should have just given up his seat (once ALREADY boarded)-random draw who has to go-WHAT IF he was traveling with a child? Child obviously can't go alone-no compensation for kid offered. OR a woman traveling alone who isn't comfortable having to go alone to a strange hotel? OR it was kid's seat that was randomly drawn? If your answer is none of those should have to give up their seats then why should this guy have to?
United was WRONG in how they handled it and the deflection to blame a passenger or the misdirection of United to shift blame is sickening! The misdirection to "safety" reasons is as bad as bombing a country to make people stop talking about foreign influences in a democratic election.

 

[bcla]

To those arguing that the guy should have just given up his seat (once ALREADY boarded)-random draw who has to go-WHAT IF he was traveling with a child? Child obviously can't go alone-no compensation for kid offered. OR a woman traveling alone who isn't comfortable having to go alone to a strange hotel? OR it was kid's seat that was randomly drawn? If your answer is none of those should have to give up their seats then why should this guy have to?
United was WRONG in how they handled it and the deflection to blame a passenger or the misdirection of United to shift blame is sickening! The misdirection to "safety" reasons is as bad as bombing a country to make people stop talking about foreign influences in a democratic election.

If a child is traveling on the same reservation as an adult, that will be taken into account. Providing the name and DoB of each passenger is also required these days. They will not separate a child from a parent or guardian under any circumstances. Maybe they bump both together. I mean - in this case Dr. Dao's wife was also bumped, and I don't think that was a coincidence if they were traveling on the same reservation.

The reality of air travel makes it more likely that a flight is cancelled or delayed, and those cases there's no compensation. Your hypothetical woman traveling alone will need to deal with where to stay on her own, and that's far more likely to happen than an involuntary bump.

Besides, all this stuff will continue to happen before the plane boards. The United case made the news because it happened after he boarded the plane.

 

[mnrose]

Two couples were the ones evicted from the flight. Obviously, whatever process they used to pick the "winners" took into account people traveling on the same itinerary. No airline gives out it's formala, but it likely included a combination of people on the same itinerary, what they paid for the travel, and when they booked their flight.

 

[disney4us2002]

Again you seem very keen to push blame on this passenger, and put him down for "not acting like an adult"
Sometimes adults need to make a stand. He was calm while refusing their request, and its United that keep calling it a request, a request can be declined.

And many of you say he holds no blame/responsibility for the escalation of the situation. Four people were told to exit. Three people exited without incident. If he had chosen to leave, no police would've been called. He also said "I am not leaving. You will have to drag me from the plane." So they did. That is not the same as saying he deserved what he got but he is far from an innocent lamb just minding his own business when out of the blue he was assaulted and thrown to the ground and dragged off the plane.