United drags passenger off flight, PR distaster ensues

[mr. synellinden]

That may be the policy but it doesn't mean the airline has the legal right to kick you off the plane. In fact, the terms of the United ticket do not give them that right to force a properly boarded passenger to leave the plane except in circumstances that were not present here. I've posted this earlier but there is a difference between bumping you - not letting you get on the plane - which is allowable with compensation - and removing you after you've boarded - which is not allowable by ticket contract. Also, it does not matter if this person is Charles Manson, his character or moral goodness is completely irrelevant, especially in terms of why this is a crisis as opposed to an incident - and that is the inane public response by United. With all of the things they handled the wrong way, the company would have avoided a full blown crisis if they had responded initially with empathy, accountability and a commitment to investigate and hold people responsible. I am convinced that the CEO had not seen the actual video when he posted his first "apology" for re-accommodating the customers.

[sagegrouse]

Mr. Synellinden (why do I think I am repeating a dirty pun I don't understand?) makes excellent points.

Let me turn my speculation to the United chain of command:

It seems to me the fault is with the director of operations for United at O'Hare and maybe his boss -- the North American head of ops (or maybe the worldwide head of ops). He must have directed the gate operation people to get this crew on the flight, no matter what. The gate crew and the pilot-in-charge would not, it seems to me, carry out drastic steps without approval from above. The director of ops is toast -- it's a position where one has to exercise judgment, and he (or she) didn't.

For example, the ops director can call another airline for space, arrange for a charter (or limo), or cancel (via HQ) the Louisville flight. What was done is unthinkable -- and of course, the goons in the O'Hare security force compounded the problem.

[fidel]

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

I'd say sell tickets with an 'overbooked' status. For the discount, you agree to not board or get off if needed.

It's only greed that wants them to maximize revenue, and sort it out at the gate.

[BD80]

So once again, trash the victim (I especially like putting the good in quotes)

The "victim's" history is relevant, particularly when judging the reasonableness of the conduct in "reaccommodating" him. He may have become belligerent or irrational and have posed a threat to other passengers (how does that sound for a sound bite from defense counsel). I used "" around "good" because his medical license had been suspended, and was now restricted. I guess I should have used quotes around "doctor" because it was a day he was not licensed to practice.

To me, his background makes me suspect that he was willing to have this become an incident that he could cash in upon. Heaven forfend that such individuals actually exist.

On a separate note, it looks like United is experimenting with other methods of deplaning their passengers:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news...cid=spartanntp

Dropping scorpions on them.

[OldPhiKap]

When I make a reservation, I select a seat from the limited options I have as is. It's my damn seat; I've reserved it.

If I check in the day before (as I almost always do), and confirm my seat assignment before I even leave for the airport, an overbooking is not my problem as far as I'm concerned.

I ain't going until they shove enough money in my pocket to make me scream "uncle." Especially if I am traveling with someone (as I think this guy was), because we only have one car at the airport.

Airlines overbook to maximize profit. I get it and applaud that. But when a situation like this arises, they've got to give some of that profit back -- paying off enough people to solve the problem which the airline created in the first place.

Doc may have been a hopped-up pill pusher for all I care. I would have done the same, hopefully without the high-pitched wailing.



And, "Scorpions on a Plane" sounds like a sure-fire smash sequel. Betty, get Samuel L. Jackson on the line for me pronto.

[gus]

So once again, trash the victim (I especially like putting the good in quotes)

Crucified man had prior run in with authorities

[BD80]

Crucified man had prior run in with authorities

It was before YouTube, so it didn't happen

[CrazyNotCrazie]

When I make a reservation, I select a seat from the limited options I have as is. It's my damn seat; I've reserved it.

If I check in the day before (as I almost always do), and confirm my seat assignment before I even leave for the airport, an overbooking is not my problem as far as I'm concerned.

I ain't going until they shove enough money in my pocket to make me scream "uncle." Especially if I am traveling with someone (as I think this guy was), because we only have one car at the airport.

Airlines overbook to maximize profit. I get it and applaud that. But when a situation like this arises, they've got to give some of that profit back -- paying off enough people to solve the problem which the airline created in the first place.

Doc may have been a hopped-up pill pusher for all I care. I would have done the same, hopefully without the high-pitched wailing.



And, "Scorpions on a Plane" sounds like a sure-fire smash sequel. Betty, get Samuel L. Jackson on the line for me pronto.

Next year we have the movie "Scorpions on a Plane." A few years later there will be an ad with Samuel L, Barkley and Spike Lee played ad nauseum during the NCAA Tournament with a bad joke about "Scorpion Bowls on a Plane"

[cato]

The "victim's" history is relevant, particularly when judging the reasonableness of the conduct in "reaccommodating" him. He may have become belligerent or irrational and have posed a threat to other passengers (how does that sound for a sound bite from defense counsel). I used "" around "good" because his medical license had been suspended, and was now restricted. I guess I should have used quotes around "doctor" because it was a day he was not licensed to practice.

To me, his background makes me suspect that he was willing to have this become an incident that he could cash in upon. Heaven forfend that such individuals actually exist.

On a separate note, it looks like United is experimenting with other methods of deplaning their passengers:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news...cid=spartanntp

Dropping scorpions on them.

That is a bold use of scare quotes around victim. Are you suggesting he wasn't thrown around in the plane? As far as I understand it, United had no authority to treat him as they did. His motivation in asserting his rights is irrelevant.

[Olympic Fan]

That is a bold use of scare quotes around victim. Are you suggesting he wasn't thrown around in the plane? As far as I understand it, United had no authority to treat him as they did. His motivation in asserting his rights is irrelevant.

I continue to be amazed at your attempts to smear the "victim" (as Cato says, your use of quotes is pretty strange.

The guy had a broken nose, a concussion, damaged sinuses and lost two teeth in the assault (and I'm not using quotes around that word). The on--plane video shows that he was not belligerent, not violent in any way.

How does the fact that he was once prosecuted for a non-violent crime justify the assault on a 69-year-old man. Prescription abuse can be serious, but the fact that he is still a practicing doctor suggests it wasn't that widespread.

Either way, it's irrelevant to what happened on that plane.

[JasonEvans]

How does the fact that he was once prosecuted for a non-violent crime justify the assault on a 69-year-old man. Prescription abuse can be serious, but the fact that he is still a practicing doctor suggests it wasn't that widespread.

Either way, it's irrelevant to what happened on that plane.

He could have been a mass murderer who pushed heroin to 8-year-olds while running a Ponzi scheme at a retirement home... but unless it is shown that United knew those facts and targeted him for removal because of that history, the personality/proclivities/past of the victim are irrelevant. Frankly, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr were just as likely as Adolph Hitler and Charles Manson to get treated that way by United.

-Jason "as usual, I find myself in 100% agreement with the sage words of Mr. Olympic" Evans

[weezie]

His wife wasn't targeted for bumping? She was supposed to stay on the plane and he was picked to get booted?
Was the gate agent a graduate of the dump on the hump? Dumb as a rock perhaps?

[cato]

The policy, I believe, is that the last person to board who paid the least, is the first to leave the plane, after volunteers. The airline can reimburse this person up to 4x the amount they originally paid, but by federal law, they cannot reimburse them any more than this amount. Idaknow why.

No link to the policy forthcoming, I offer this: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

[mgtr]

OK, where do I sign up to be the next person dragged off? A few bumps and bruises (and chipped teeth) in exchange for a wheelbarrow full of money? Beats working for a living. I used to know a woman who worked in a major city and got rear-ended three times. It was her avowed intent (privately) to get rear-ended and collect big. She collected a bunch two out of three, with no permanent damage (though she may have been a little nuts to start with).
I am sure that insurance companies have a file full of similar stories.

[JasonEvans]

I bet United is having an impossible time bumping people today. I am sure no one is taking anything less than $1350 for a bump and folks are just begging the gate agents to call the cops so they can get a lawsuit too.

[Channing]

I read an article posing an interesting question (can't find link, apologies). United's policy apparently does not permit removing a passenger once that passenger has been seated (I haven't verified, but apparently they can deny boarding for a number of reasons, and can remove for a number of reasons, but overbooking is not a reason for removal). So, if United removes a passenger from the plane for overbooking they are in breach of their contract with the customer. However, notwithstanding the breach, it is illegal not to follow directions from airline personnel (apparently). So, once United breached its contract the Dr. may have committed a crime by not adhering.

All that said, United should have done what Delta does and bid out the overbooking to the lowest bidder.

[weezie]

...I used to know a woman who worked in a major city and got rear-ended three times. It was her avowed intent (privately) to get rear-ended and collect big. She collected a bunch two out of three, with no permanent damage (though she may have been a little nuts to start with)

Ya think?!!!

[BD80]

I bet United is having an impossible time bumping people today. I am sure no one is taking anything less than $1350 for a bump and folks are just begging the gate agents to call the cops so they can get a lawsuit too.

Like United has to worry about flights being overbooked for a while ...

[snowdenscold]

Like United has to worry about flights being overbooked for a while ...

You'd like to think, however, I'm pretty sure departure times, direct / non-stop availability, and price are still going to be the overriding factors for most people, including myself.

[JasonEvans]

You'd like to think, however, I'm pretty sure departure times, direct / non-stop availability, and price are still going to be the overriding factors for most people, including myself.

I agree, but here's the thing... I suspect that (at least for a few months while this is still fresh in everyone's minds) if United is basically the same price as someone else -- something that happens a lot because airlines try to be competitive on similar routes -- many in the public will pick "someone else." If that happens just 5% of the time, it is a financial disaster for United.