United drags passenger off flight, PR distaster ensues

[OldPhiKap]

Seen on Twitter:

Pepsi: "Nothing can be as bad as the PR nightmare we've inflicted on ourselves."

United Airlines: "Hold my beer."

[weezie]

...United needed the seats to take crew members to Louisville for another flight...Once they seated the guy, he flies. United should have found an alternative to get the crew member to Louisville. Charter, limo, Uber, who knows...

That's what I was wondering. Out of Chicago, of all places, their home base?! There isn't aaannnnyyyy other way to get a crew to Louisville? Flights every five minutes and some career gate clerk decides to bring in the heavy artillery.

[jaytoc]

I resent the idea that the contract for carriage does not obligate the carrier to honor a passenger's reservation. I also agree that once folks are boarded the better policy would be to acquiesce in the passenger's refusal to deplane.

Still, I have this question, and I'm not sure of my answer: If you assume that the passenger has no legal right to remain on board, and he defies an authorized individual's request/demand that he leave, then refuses to obey the instructions of police officers, what are the authorities to do to deal with his physical resistance?

I have some sympathy for the authorities in this instance. I'm not sure there was an alternative to the use of appropriate force. Obviously I'm in a distinct minority. I'm interested in the wisdom of the board - talk me off the ledge.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I resent the idea that the contract for carriage does not obligate the carrier to honor a passenger's reservation. I also agree that once folks are boarded the better policy would be to acquiesce in the passenger's refusal to deplane.

Still, I have this question, and I'm not sure of my answer: If you assume that the passenger has no legal right to remain on board, and he defies an authorized individual's request/demand that he leave, then refuses to obey the instructions of police officers, what are the authorities to do to deal with his physical resistance?

I have some sympathy for the authorities in this instance. I'm not sure there was an alternative to the use of appropriate force. Obviously I'm in a distinct minority. I'm interested in the wisdom of the board - talk me off the ledge.

Well, it isn't just the debatable right to kick off a paying passenger or the right to use force to do so. It is also the level of ineptitude that United has shown since the incident. The hubris displayed may have worked in the "pre-everyone-has-a-camera" universe, but refusing to offer an apology, passing the buck to the not-involved police, and basically doubling down on the back of policy is wildly tone-deaf.

Even if the crisis was by the book, the handling afterwards has been a resounding embarrassment.

[camion]

I resent the idea that the contract for carriage does not obligate the carrier to honor a passenger's reservation. I also agree that once folks are boarded the better policy would be to acquiesce in the passenger's refusal to deplane.

Still, I have this question, and I'm not sure of my answer: If you assume that the passenger has no legal right to remain on board, and he defies an authorized individual's request/demand that he leave, then refuses to obey the instructions of police officers, what are the authorities to do to deal with his physical resistance?

I have some sympathy for the authorities in this instance. I'm not sure there was an alternative to the use of appropriate force. Obviously I'm in a distinct minority. I'm interested in the wisdom of the board - talk me off the ledge.

I'm reminded of a joke about the difference between knowledge and wisdom: Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Here I believe United had knowledge of their legal rights, but should have been wise enough not to invoke them.

[TampaDuke]

That said, the idea that I can buy an airline ticket and not be guaranteed a seat (outside of security reasons) is idiotic and it would be nice if that changed.

To me, THAT is the issue -- that the law is written to protect the airlines and screw the passenger.

In almost every other case, the failure to deliver on a purchased contract would open you up to all kinds of liability issues ... but not with an airline, which can cancel your contract with them unilaterally at any point (even after you have taken a seat on your plane) -- for no reason except they want to do it.

The law allows them to do that.

I get what you're saying, but the question is really how much would you be willing to pay to have the guaranteed seat? While I think the airlines are incredibly poor at customer service, the fact is that this practice helps keep prices down, which is what the traveling public apparently truly cares about. Ordinarily, it's not that difficult for airlines to offer incentives to get people to volunteer, but no doubt the week-long delays recently changed the economic equation for the travelers on this particular plane.

Also, I'm not sure I'd blame the law on this morass. If you allowed lawsuits over this type of practice, you'd quickly see the cost of travel skyrocket. And not all carriers have this practice, so the public does have some options should it want to take stand.

On the PR stand, I continue to be amazed at how many large companies (presumably with large PR staffs and budgets) haven't learned to live in the age of camera phones and Twitter.

[cato]

First of all United needed the seats to take crew members to Louisville for another flight. IMHO they should have figured that out before they boarded the Chicago flight, offered compensation, and then if they still needed a seat done the lottery thing and kept someone off the flight. It seems to be that it is a lot easier to keep someone from boarding then to drag them off the plane.

Once they seated the guy, he flies. United should have found an alternative to get the crew member to Louisville. Charter, limo, Uber, who knows.

There are many on line who say they will never fly United again. What is their alternative? Another crappy domestic airline!

Deregulation has brought low cost flights and lousy service. How much more would you pay for an airline that provided good service?

I can remember when airlines used to advertise and promote their service and food. Now I think everyone just goes on line to try to find the least cost flight. When is the last time you saw a domestic airline ad on TV?

SoCal

Bags Fly Free.

I do not fly much, and luckily, Southwest and JetBlue fly most places I go.

[throatybeard]

There are many on line who say they will never fly United again. What is their alternative? Another crappy domestic airline!

Exactly.

People can screech about this on FaceTwit all they want to, but when you basically have an oligopoly of four airlines, a lot of these threats to boycott United will turn out to be idle. Outside of a few large markets, there's hardly any feasible consumer choice.

I'm a Delta loyalist because I have to travel to the Southeast a lot, so that's *the* feasible option at a lot of those smaller airports. If the same thing happened on Delta, my choice wouldn't be boycott Delta or stay with Delta. It would be boycott flying, or stay with Delta. Drive, or stay with Delta.

This'll blow over. United will be fine after an initial period of bad PR.

[rsvman]

Others have mentioned similar things, but I'll sum it up from my perspective.

1) Limo the employees to Louisville. It's like a 3.5-hour drive. What's the big deal?

2) Offer the passengers $5000 to deplane. You'd easily find 4 people willing to take that. In the end it would've saved a ton of money.

[luburch]

Others have mentioned similar things, but I'll sum it up from my perspective.

1) Limo the employees to Louisville. It's like a 3.5-hour drive. What's the big deal?

2) Offer the passengers $5000 to deplane. You'd easily find 4 people willing to take that. In the end it would've saved a ton of money.

Chicago to Louisville is about a 4.5 hour drive. 5.5 if you count the time difference.

What's the rule of thumb? If it's under 6 hours, you're better off driving?

Get to the airport 1-1.5 hours early. Fly 2 hours. Take an .5-1.0 hours to land and leave...

[Jeffrey]

It would take an unprecedented level of corporate stupidity to keep this incident from going away.

Perfectly stated, since this is proving to be United's biggest problem. United's stock was not affected by the incident (yesterday), but it sure has been affected by senior management's response (today).

Obviously, the passenger should not have been physically abused. However, it appears to me the passenger (unlike the three who left the plane when instructed) is not stable. I just watched a video of the guy repeatedly saying, "just kill me, just kill me". I wonder why a TSA officer did not come on the plane, repeatedly direct him to depart, and then arrest him for refusing to follow their directives? Clearly, all airlines need to handle this differently in the future.

[Mal]

Chicago to Louisville is about a 4.5 hour drive. 5.5 if you count the time difference.

What's the rule of thumb? If it's under 6 hours, you're better off driving?

Get to the airport 1-1.5 hours early. Fly 2 hours. Take an .5-1.0 hours to land and leave...

My rule of thumb is 5 hours, but ymmv. Leaving the house 1:45 preflight, then the 1:30 from wheels on the ground through baggage, cab and to destination means the flight itself needs to be at least 2 hours in the air or you're already losing even before any delays. Not to mention the dehumanizing security theater process and cattle call feeling of modern domestic air travel.

In any event, the airlines could easily fix this problem (if, in fact, they see it as a problem rather than just a perfect storm of bad luck in this particular instance) if they wanted to by creating a real market for giving up your seat on an oversold flight. Notify all ticketed passengers as soon as the flight's oversold, notify them again when it hits some threshold of check-in's the day before the flight that indicates you're going to be short on seats, and start the auction then. If you wait until everyone's dragged their rears out of bed at 5:00 in the morning to have their soul crushed on the way to the gate and then tell them there's not enough seats for everybody, the immediate reaction for a lot of people is "F you, airline. I'm getting on that plane unless you start the offers at two grand cash on the barrel." Part of the problem is that the airlines haven't properly assessed the actual value to customers of not getting bumped - they assume they'll always find enough 25-year-olds happy to take a $200 voucher they'll never be able to use and a night at the Hilton. But that's less often the case when they wait until everyone's already at the gate.

[YmoBeThere]

Did the crew have to make it to Louisville to staff another flight? That potentially could have made the time to drive a moot point. It would have potentially opened up other lines of thought, I would have taken $800 and payment for a one way rental if they included satellite radio.

[Jeffrey]

Part of the problem is that the airlines haven't properly assessed the actual value to customers of not getting bumped - they assume they'll always find enough 25-year-olds happy to take a $200 voucher they'll never be able to use and a night at the Hilton. But that's less often the case when they wait until everyone's already at the gate.

I think the U.S. Government did an assessment. IIRC, the Dept. of Transportation does have a law the airlines have to pay you ~ $1,400 if they bump you and you arrive to your destination more than 4 hours late. I wonder if the United crew conveyed this to all passengers?

[niveklaen]

Someone at the old TDD appears to have actually looked up the relevant regs. Does not look like United was within its rights.

JeffreyStuart wrote:

SportsFan2798 wrote:
The guy should've just got off the plane. If you need to be with patients the next day then get a plane a day early. Anyone who flies frequently especially for business knows that a flight is not a guaranteed thing. You are paying to get from A to B, but not paying to get from A to B on time...

[redacted for copyright]

[cato]

My rule of thumb is 5 hours, but ymmv. Leaving the house 1:45 preflight, then the 1:30 from wheels on the ground through baggage, cab and to destination means the flight itself needs to be at least 2 hours in the air or you're already losing even before any delays. Not to mention the dehumanizing security theater process and cattle call feeling of modern domestic air travel.

In any event, the airlines could easily fix this problem (if, in fact, they see it as a problem rather than just a perfect storm of bad luck in this particular instance) if they wanted to by creating a real market for giving up your seat on an oversold flight. Notify all ticketed passengers as soon as the flight's oversold, notify them again when it hits some threshold of check-in's the day before the flight that indicates you're going to be short on seats, and start the auction then. If you wait until everyone's dragged their rears out of bed at 5:00 in the morning to have their soul crushed on the way to the gate and then tell them there's not enough seats for everybody, the immediate reaction for a lot of people is "F you, airline. I'm getting on that plane unless you start the offers at two grand cash on the barrel." Part of the problem is that the airlines haven't properly assessed the actual value to customers of not getting bumped - they assume they'll always find enough 25-year-olds happy to take a $200 voucher they'll never be able to use and a night at the Hilton. But that's less often the case when they wait until everyone's already at the gate.

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.

Here is a thought that occurred to me: most tickets are non-refundable. If a passenger doesn't show, the airline keeps the money (potentially reserving it as a credit for future flights). But if the airline has already sold that seat to someone else, and the flight takes off 100% full, the airline has no damages. In many states, I doubt the airline would be legally entitled to keep the money.

I have no idea what law would govern damages in this instance.

[JasonEvans]

-Jason "amazingly, United stock was up $.90 today... I just can't see how this doesn't do some short-term damage to their business, but maybe I am overthinking it" Evans

I should have shorted United!!!

It is bouncing around, down between 2 and 3%. To put that in perspective, the company stock has lost about $800 million of value. WOW! The lawsuits (which will be lucratively settled out of court) are nothing compared to the lost business. UAL does $100 mil per day in revenues. If just 2 or 3% of the people who would ordinarily buy a United ticket choose to buy from someone else for the next few weeks (and the percentage could be higher), it will cost United hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

The entire United PR department should be immediately fired. Perhaps the only thing stupider than forcibly removing the guy from the plane is the tone-deaf, lawyer-speak, corporate response from United.

-Jason "odds that CEO Munoz lasts until the end of the month? Maybe 50-50" Evans

[JasonEvans]

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.

Here is a thought that occurred to me: most tickets are non-refundable. If a passenger doesn't show, the airline keeps the money (potentially reserving it as a credit for future flights). But if the airline has already sold that seat to someone else, and the flight takes off 100% full, the airline has no damages. In many states, I doubt the airline would be legally entitled to keep the money.

I have no idea what law would govern damages in this instance.

Ya'll are overthinking this. The airlines just need to do what they have always done, offer incentives AT THE GATE, BEFORE FOLKS BOARD. In fact, the smart thing to do is to announce, "We are seeking folks who are willing to be bumped, we guarantee to put you on the next flight out which leaves in xxx minutes/hours." Then when people approach to find out what you are offering you merely conduct a reverse auction and say, "At what price would you be willing to give up your seat?" This is the easiest and cheapest way to handle the situation.

-Jason "I know some folks think Delta, Southwest, and American are celebrating today but I suspect they know this could lead to new rules and regulations for everyone. Congress will notice the public outrage and will pounce" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Jimmy Kimmel just killed United last night.

“Re-accommodate?!" Like we re-accommodated El Chapo out of Mexico. That is such sanitized, say nothing, take no responsibility corporate BS-speak. I don’t know how the guy who sent that tweet didn’t vomit when he typed it out.

-Jason "warning, there is some bleeped cursing in that video... and it is hysterical" Evans

[Reilly]

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