Originally Posted by
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!