United drags passenger off flight, PR distaster ensues

[OldPhiKap]

Maybe they could have offered PB&J sandwiches as an inducement to de-plane?

Smooth peanut butter would be a deal killer for me.

Abomination, I tells 'ya.

[Mal]

Interesting idea, but it doesn't help the airlines put a rear end in every seat. They assume that x% of passengers will not show up for their flight, so commit 100% + x% of the seats. If you started bumping passengers before they show up and check in at the airport, you will have fewer people who show up and don't fly, but more empty seats.

I'm not talking about bumping, though. I'm talking about finding volunteers. When it's clear that enough people have checked in, or at minimum not cancelled 24 hours before flight time, that you're going to have more rear ends than seats, start the incentives auction to buy them off sooner rather than later. So, instead of having a possible pool of maybe 10 people on a flight with the flexibility and desire to stay an extra day where they are, you might expand that group to 30 by handling it before they go through the commitment and hassle of getting to the airport/gate. And if you can't get enough people to volunteer and you have to actually bump someone, you save them the aggravation of having spent half the day getting to the airport only to get booted, then having to make arrangements, at the airport, to possibly have to stay another night somewhere. Everyone who flies has got a smartphone - use that technology.

[Bluedog]

Okay, I'm going to play some devil's advocate for the fun of it, so be nice...First, even the title of this thread could be seen as misleading: "United drags passenger off flight." Does United employ the Chicago Aviation Police? I don't think so. An accurate (but lengthy) title is really: "United IDB passengers, one refuses, United seeks help of authorities, Chicago Aviation Polic drags passenger off flight, PR disaster for United ensues." This is similar to the last debacle from United. "United doesn't allow female customer to board for wearing leggings" could be "United enforces a dress code policy for employee families flying free." I thought that story was very misleading as the vast majority of people can't read beyond a headline and just thought it was a paying customer denied.

Based on the letter of the law, the airlines have the right to exercise the IDB (involuntary denied boarding) clause based on the contract of carriage that passengers "agree" to when you purchase a ticket. Yes, it sucks but they do it to 40,000+ passengers a year (almost always BEFORE boarding though). Certainly, one could argue this is a bogus policy, but all airlines do it (except basically JetBlue who advertises that they don't overbook). Two passengers who were told to vacate the plane, and did so begrugingly but with no fanfare. Then, a passenger says "too bad, I don't want to leave" and is told authorities will come if he refuses. Now, this is where things go wrong, and is it not 100% the fault of the individual Chicago Aviation Police officer?!?

I don't understand why they didn't put him in handcuffs to be honest if he refused and they said he was "beligerant." (The Chicago Aviation Police is not the same as CPD, so maybe they don't even have handcuffs. I know they don't have guns). As ridiculous as that sounds, they were within their legal rights to do so. As a passenger, if I simply say "No, I don't want to get off" and throw a fit I should expect that they choose somebody else? That sends a great message! Doesn't that incentivize just refusing? Now, I'm 100% NOT saying a paying customer deserves to be treated in that manner by the Chicago Avitation Police and DRAGGED off, but United did follow their procedures (we can certainly argue if they are silly procedures). If people learn that you can simply refuse and then they'll move to somebody else, well, then, people will undoubtedly refuse. Or if there's a possibility that you'll get a multi-million dollar payout from refusing...As an airline, you need to enforce your rules if you want the rules to be in place. It's not United's fault that the authorities made a spectacle and dragged him off. If a Durham police officer shot somebody on Duke's campus, that wouldn't be the fault of Duke.

Now, where United probably was stupid was the fact that they should continue to increase their voluntary comp over above $800 when nobody took it. They have to legally pay 400% of the fare up to $1350 if they IDB, so keep going on up...Somebody would have taken it at $1000 most likely, not sure why they stopped, if that's up to the discretion of the individual gate agents, or what. Maybe the people they kicked off were on cheap fares so 400% would be less, but it would seem to be a wise move to increase it so to avoid IDB. It's only a 5 drive to Louisville, people could get there the same day. (I guess that goes for the unfortunate guy who got dragged off who said he needed to be there the next day -- yeah, a pain for sure, but seems doable for anybody to have gotten back that same day.)

And the second bad move from United was certainly their response from a PR perpsective. In this day and age, they have to KNOW they're going to the ones to be blamed and things will go viral no matter what, so instead of saying "we did everything according to the book" they should START with and emphasize the point that they NEVER want to see paying customers treated with disrespect in that way. Didn't they learn anything from the leggings PR nightmare just a short time ago?

Okay, that's it from me. Yes, terrible PR for United and they made a couple of moves that seem stupid especially in hindsight, but they can't be responsible for the actions of others and for some reason, they're the ones getting all the blame. (And I don't think they should be legally liable, but they'll likely pay out to just make it go away). This is a situation that arises thousands of times during the year and unfortunately for some reason airlines are allowed to enforce it and people are supposed to comply and leave peacefully. (No, I'm not a United employee although I do fly them a decent amount. If people actually start to boycott United, I'm fine with that as more open seats/lower fares for me. People are VERY price/route concious for flights though so I doubt this will have any lasting impact on sales. People also have short memories...).

Feel free to eviscerate my logic!

[Jeffrey]

I should have shorted United!!!

Why specifically and when would you have shorted the stock?

[Jeffrey]

I don't understand why they didn't put him in handcuffs to be honest if he refused and they said he was "beligerant."

I'm also confused about this. Post-9/11, you do not want to behave in the passenger's manner. Clearly, the passenger was not stable when he was repeatedly saying, "just kill me, just kill me". I'm surprised a Federal Agent (TSA) did not take him into custody. Doesn't a passenger have to follow flight crew directives?

[rthomas]

One question: The guy gets drug off the plane. Then he runs back on the plane.

How did that happen?

[Jeffrey]

One question: The guy gets drug off the plane. Then he runs back on the plane.

How did that happen?

IDK. And, one more question, how did they get him off the second time? Maybe, that's how they should have handled it the first time.

[mph]

Okay, I'm going to play some devil's advocate for the fun of it, so be nice...First, even the title of this thread could be seen as misleading: "United drags passenger off flight." Does United employ the Chicago Aviation Police? I don't think so. An accurate (but lengthy) title is really: "United IDB passengers, one refuses, United seeks help of authorities, Chicago Aviation Polic drags passenger off flight, PR disaster for United ensues." This is similar to the last debacle from United. "United doesn't allow female customer to board for wearing leggings" could be "United enforces a dress code policy for employee families flying free." I thought that story was very misleading as the vast majority of people can't read beyond a headline and just thought it was a paying customer denied.

Based on the letter of the law, the airlines have the right to exercise the IDB (involuntary denied boarding) clause based on the contract of carriage that passengers "agree" to when you purchase a ticket. Yes, it sucks but they do it to 40,000+ passengers a year (almost always BEFORE boarding though). Certainly, one could argue this is a bogus policy, but all airlines do it (except basically JetBlue who advertises that they don't overbook). Two passengers who were told to vacate the plane, and did so begrugingly but with no fanfare. Then, a passenger says "too bad, I don't want to leave" and is told authorities will come if he refuses. Now, this is where things go wrong, and is it not 100% the fault of the individual Chicago Aviation Police officer?!?

I don't understand why they didn't put him in handcuffs to be honest if he refused and they said he was "beligerant." (The Chicago Aviation Police is not the same as CPD, so maybe they don't even have handcuffs. I know they don't have guns). As ridiculous as that sounds, they were within their legal rights to do so. As a passenger, if I simply say "No, I don't want to get off" and throw a fit I should expect that they choose somebody else? That sends a great message! Doesn't that incentivize just refusing? Now, I'm 100% NOT saying a paying customer deserves to be treated in that manner by the Chicago Avitation Police and DRAGGED off, but United did follow their procedures (we can certainly argue if they are silly procedures). If people learn that you can simply refuse and then they'll move to somebody else, well, then, people will undoubtedly refuse. Or if there's a possibility that you'll get a multi-million dollar payout from refusing...As an airline, you need to enforce your rules if you want the rules to be in place. It's not United's fault that the authorities made a spectacle and dragged him off. If a Durham police officer shot somebody on Duke's campus, that wouldn't be the fault of Duke.

Now, where United probably was stupid was the fact that they should continue to increase their voluntary comp over above $800 when nobody took it. They have to legally pay 400% of the fare up to $1350 if they IDB, so keep going on up...Somebody would have taken it at $1000 most likely, not sure why they stopped, if that's up to the discretion of the individual gate agents, or what. Maybe the people they kicked off were on cheap fares so 400% would be less, but it would seem to be a wise move to increase it so to avoid IDB. It's only a 5 drive to Louisville, people could get there the same day. (I guess that goes for the unfortunate guy who got dragged off who said he needed to be there the next day -- yeah, a pain for sure, but seems doable for anybody to have gotten back that same day.)

And the second bad move from United was certainly their response from a PR perpsective. In this day and age, they have to KNOW they're going to the ones to be blamed and things will go viral no matter what, so instead of saying "we did everything according to the book" they should START with and emphasize the point that they NEVER want to see paying customers treated with disrespect in that way. Didn't they learn anything from the leggings PR nightmare just a short time ago?

Okay, that's it from me. Yes, terrible PR for United and they made a couple of moves that seem stupid especially in hindsight, but they can't be responsible for the actions of others and for some reason, they're the ones getting all the blame. (And I don't think they should be legally liable, but they'll likely pay out to just make it go away). This is a situation that arises thousands of times during the year and unfortunately for some reason airlines are allowed to enforce it and people are supposed to comply and leave peacefully. (No, I'm not a United employee although I do fly them a decent amount. If people actually start to boycott United, I'm fine with that as more open seats/lower fares for me. People are VERY price/route concious for flights though so I doubt this will have any lasting impact on sales. People also have short memories...).

Feel free to eviscerate my logic!

Great post! United should have increased their compensation offer until they found 4 people willing to deplane, but their biggest mistake was misunderstanding how their response would be received in a social media driven environment where people believe they have an accurate understanding of a complex situation after reading a tweet or watching a 20 second video. Legging-gate should have been fresh in their memory.

FWIW, my father was a pilot for Piedmont and then US Airways and I remember a coat and tie being required when I flew non-revenue as a child. The standards have relaxed since I was young but dress codes for employees and their friends using buddy passes are common across the industry. I believe its reasonable for an airline to have a dress code for non-rev flyers, but I don't think yoga pants are pants so I might be biased.

[JasonEvans]

Why specifically and when would you have shorted the stock?

This thread was started at 2:30 or so yesterday, before the market closed. I had already seen the video an hour or so before then. It was clear by 3pm that this was going to blow up into a social media uproar. A short at that time could have gotten you 2-3 points on the stock if you chose to sell right now.

I used "short" as short-hand but the real play would have been to purchase UAL puts. The April 13th 70-put was trading at about 40-cents throughout the day yesterday. This morning, it spiked up to almost 2, meaning you could have more than quadrupled your money in one day. UAL stock has recovered a bit and the put is now at .72, which is still almost doubling your money.

-Jason "oh well, I'm a genius about stock tips and money when looking in hindsight " Evans

[JasonEvans]

Bluedog,

I think most would agree that the aviation police made a bad situation about 500x worse and that they bear some of the blame here. I just have to think there was some other way to get that person off the plane versus dragging him from his seat and causing physical harm to him. And, to be fair, the doctor who refused to deplane also shares some blame. You are completely right that there were few outcomes that were good for him once he was told he had to leave and he refused (well, maybe this outcome was good because he is going to make more money from that night than most of us could earn in a lifetime).

But, I still think United is the major culprit. It was United who chose to forcibly eject people at random from an already boarded plane rather than offer escalating compensation (which was sure to get a taker at some point, likely only a couple hundred bucks from the current offer). It was United who chose to call in the aviation police instead of trying to work something out. United lost control of the situation the moment they called the aviation police and that is where they made a huge mistake. They essentially put their corporate reputation in the hands of some guys who fall somewhere between mall cop and TSA on the police competency scale. Bad idea.

And, perhaps most importantly, it is United who has been utterly tone deaf to the situation issuing absurd statements and refusing to take responsibility for their customers. You are correct that the headline and the perception are at least a little bit unfair to United, but they earned that unfair treatment with their actions to cause this problem and their response to it.

-Jason "in essence, United was a farmer who put a fox in with the chickens and then said 'it is the fox's fault that the chickens got eaten'" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

Based on the letter of the law, the airlines have the right to exercise the IDB (involuntary denied boarding) clause based on the contract of carriage that passengers "agree" to when you purchase a ticket. Yes, it sucks but they do it to 40,000+ passengers a year (almost always BEFORE boarding though).

I posted something similar yesterday ... but I have since learned that the LAW only covers pre-boarding. Ejecting passengers who have boarded (without cause) is apparently ILLEGAL.

Also, I was told that it's important when the four United employees were added to the passenger list. I'm not sure of the details, but the law apparently specifies a cutoff when they could be added. Adding them after the cutoff point -- and bumping four passengers to make room for them -- is also ILLEGAL.

I hope somebody with more knowledge of the law will post here and clarify these points.

At the very best, United behaved high-handedly and arrogantly, then turned it into a public relations nightmare with their response.

At worst, United acted illegally to remove the passenger -- and that doesn't even count the possible claims against the aviation cops.

[Jeffrey]

This thread was started at 2:30 or so yesterday, before the market closed. I had already seen the video an hour or so before then. It was clear by 3pm that this was going to blow up into a social media uproar. A short at that time could have gotten you 2-3 points on the stock if you chose to sell right now.

I used "short" as short-hand but the real play would have been to purchase UAL puts. The April 13th 70-put was trading at about 40-cents throughout the day yesterday. This morning, it spiked up to almost 2, meaning you could have more than quadrupled your money in one day. UAL stock has recovered a bit and the put is now at .72, which is still almost doubling your money.

-Jason "oh well, I'm a genius about stock tips and money when looking in hindsight " Evans

I do not believe the social media uproar is the reason the stock dropped today. As you correctly stated, "It was clear by 3pm that this was going to blow up into a social media uproar" and the stock actually closed up yesterday.

I believe the stock got beat up today because of United's pathetic response. Were you also predicting United's pathetic response before it happened?

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you, Jason. I often hear, "I should have shorted XYZ" based upon public information. IMO, most people do not appear to fully appreciate how quickly public information is priced into a stock.

[Jeffrey]

IMO, UAL's stock would have been much less volatile and lower today, if Munoz had just said the following last evening:

"The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way," Munoz said in a statement.

"I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right," he added.

[kexman]

I think overselling seats is not necessarily bad. The vast majority of the time people are happy to volunteer. It is fairly efficient. They just needed to go higher until 4 people say yes. To MAL's point, my price has gone up since I was 25, but I can still be bought for a reasonable price. there are probably occasional flights or after delays when people are unwilling to give up seats, but it likely works the vast majority of the time for the volunteer, the person who was able to get a seat, and the airline.

[gus]

And, to be fair, the doctor who refused to deplane also shares some blame.

I strongly disagree with this. This is victim blaming.

United had options to de-escalate, but chose instead to use violence. Dr. Dao paid for his ticket, he boarded legally, he was in his seat, had a valid reason to want to get home on time, and was not posing a threat to the aircraft or other passengers. He could have acceded to the arbitrary demand that he de-plane, sure. But it is the perpetrator of the assault and the company that created the situation that caused the assault that are to blame here.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I was on a United flight out of ATL Tuesday morning after this all blew up. The flight was only 2/3 full so everything went smoothly. Ironically, a few gates down American was having a big celebration as it was flying a plane full of older veterans to DC for free to see the monuments. Talk about polar opposite pr.

As noted above by others, my threshold of drive vs fly continues to go up. To pay for four tickets, get my two young kids to the airport and through the bureaucratic nightmare of security (and I have pre-check), pay a fortune for any snack in the airport, then hope my flight actually leaves on time and they don't lose my bag, it has to be a pretty long flight - usually over 400 miles.

Despite this pr mess, I don't know if this very pro-business administration and congress will change the laws in a way that will hurt the airlines. I am expecting more of the status quo. From an operations perspective, it continues to amaze me that airlines have made it harder to get on an early flight of you get to the airport early. If there are empty seats, they should want to get you out to minimize the risk of having to pay people to get off later flights. But I routinely encounter fees for this unless I have status.

[OldPhiKap]

I was on a United flight out of ATL Tuesday morning after this all blew up. The flight was only 2/3 full so everything went smoothly. Ironically, a few gates down American was having a big celebration as it was flying a plane full of older veterans to DC for free to see the monuments. Talk about polar opposite pr.

As noted above by others, my threshold of drive vs fly continues to go up. To pay for four tickets, get my two young kids to the airport and through the bureaucratic nightmare of security (and I have pre-check), pay a fortune for any snack in the airport, then hope my flight actually leaves on time and they don't lose my bag, it has to be a pretty long flight - usually over 400 miles.

Despite this pr mess, I don't know if this very pro-business administration and congress will change the laws in a way that will hurt the airlines. I am expecting more of the status quo. From an operations perspective, it continues to amaze me that airlines have made it harder to get on an early flight of you get to the airport early. If there are empty seats, they should want to get you out to minimize the risk of having to pay people to get off later flights. But I routinely encounter fees for this unless I have status.

I am a big fan of Pre-Check.

[Highlander]

I have seen reference to United's policy to typically deny passengers boarding in an oversold situation. However, that's not what happened here. The passenger was allowed to board, then told he must de-plane to make room for a United employee, who arrived at the gate during or shortly after boarding. The legal question I have is whether United has the right to force a passenger <b>who has already boarded and is not being a disruption</b> out of his/her purchased seat against their will. I think they do, but if their policy clearly states prior to boarding, it will definitely hurt their case. Regardless, they are going to have to cough up at least 7 figures to this guy, and rightly so.

Here's a good article I found which lays the blame at the feet of Continental's culture:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...arding-fiasco/

I’m convinced that this was [ex Continental and United CEO Jeff] Smisek-era small-ball thinking at its finest. Under his leadership, United believed that cutting costs was the path to profitability, and that extended right down to bump compensation.

Sadly, some of that mentality is still prevalent at the company today despite Munoz’s best efforts. We still see front line agents that aren’t able to fix reservations and instead resort to calling the mythical help desk. Unfortunately, in this case, they skipped the help desk and went straight to the cops.

[mr. synellinden]

I strongly disagree with this. This is victim blaming.

United had options to de-escalate, but chose instead to use violence. Dr. Dao paid for his ticket, he boarded legally, he was in his seat, had a valid reason to want to get home on time, and was not posing a threat to the aircraft or other passengers. He could have acceded to the arbitrary demand that he de-plane, sure. But it is the perpetrator of the assault and the company that created the situation that caused the assault that are to blame here.

I have seen reference to United's policy to typically deny passengers boarding in an oversold situation. However, that's not what happened here. The passenger was allowed to board, then told he must de-plane to make room for a United employee, who arrived at the gate during or shortly after boarding. The legal question I have is whether United has the right to force a passenger <b>who has already boarded and is not being a disruption</b> out of his/her purchased seat against their will. I think they do, but if their policy clearly states prior to boarding, it will definitely hurt their case. Regardless, they are going to have to cough up at least 7 figures to this guy, and rightly so.

Here's a good article I found which lays the blame at the feet of Continental's culture:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...arding-fiasco/

These two posts are related in my opinion. My understanding after doing a fair amount of research on this is that the airline does not have the right to "un-seat" you after you've boarded. They have the right to take you off the plane if you are a security threat, if there is a government request and a host of other reasonable situations. But not if the plane is oversold. And in this case, it wasn't oversold. They had a business problem because they needed to get employees to Louisville. That's the customer's problem? Again, once you are boarded you cannot be forced to give up your seat. You can be asked and enticed with free tickets, etc. But you have a legal right to stay on the plane. That's where this went awry to begin with. The customer was well within his rights to refuse to leave even if he was belligerent about it. And then it went miles off the rails with the idiotic PR response. I am convinced that the CEO did not see the video or know the facts when he put his first statement out. There is no other rational explanation for his apology for "re-accomodating" customers. If he saw the video and knows the policy on kicking someone off the plane and responded that way, then if I were on the board of directors I would fire him immediately.

[PackMan97]

The important lesson to learn from all of this is that "might makes right now". Regardless of whether policies, procedures and the law is followed or not, once you board an airplane you become subject to the ORDERS of the flight crew. They may phrase things in the form of a request, such as "asking" this passenger to deplane, but the truth is they are orders that will be enforced as soon as law enforcement becomes available.

Remember that the next time you are on a flight. The local authority (the flight crew) is in absolute control and disobey them at your own risk.

Just as with the police, your safety is dependent on you making the authority on the scene believing you are compliant and not a threat. Even if you disagree, there are better, more productive and most importantly safer ways to lodge a formal complain than trying to fight authority. Hint: John Mellancamp sung about this, and authority always won.