Support NeoGAF

[III-V]

all respect to the doctor.

A big FU to the fucking loser at United.

And, yes, I might put on a lil rage to commemorate the moment.

something to the tune of Killing in the Name

Im sick of anti consumer anti humanity corporations are a person bullshit.

 

[siddx]

It's less than a five hour drive from chicago to Louisville, if you are so poorly organized as a company you can't get your employees to Louisville via plane, stick your employees in a fucking rental car or van and drive them there. But don't kick off your paid customers because of your shitty fucking planning.

 

[starchild excalibur]

I've never flown United and part of it is because I continue to hear horror stories about them. It's ridiculous that their own policy of overbooking caused this mess to begin with. Hope this video costs them a lot of business.

United Training Video...

I always laugh at Leslie Nielsen's second slap.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

It would be pretty interesting to see what happens if this goes to trail. Personally I think United would win but who knows. They would be insane to even try, but it's United...

It'll never get there. United is offering the man a settlement right now or has already done so to waive all his claims.

If he doesn't take it and sues, they will offer him an even bigger settlement to dismiss because win or lose, they will lose. If they win at trial, the court of public opinion will be even worse for them because it'll look like they bullied the passenger again and remind people of this horrible event a second time and every single time after that that something significant in the case happens.

So if United getting a confidential settlement is a win for United, then yes they will absolutely win.

 

[chromatic9]

https://twitter.com/FatKidDeals/status/851459488791973888

Including complementary gum shield

 

[Audioboxer]

14 CFR Chapter 2 is generally the federal law which concerns commercial flights. They refer to boarding also as "enplaning" versus "deplaning".

14 CFR Part 217 and 14 CFR Part 241 define an "enplaned passenger" as a passenger who boards a plane at any particular airport.

49 CFR Part 1510 also defines "passenger enplanement" as "a person boarding in the United States in scheduled or nonscheduled service on aircraft in intrastate, interstate, or foreign air transportation".

14 CFR Part 158 defines it as essentially the same.

Under federal law, this passenger would be considered "boarded" or "enplaned".

It is true that the plane is considered "in flight" when the doors are closed, but this has nothing to do with whether the passenger was already "boarded" or not.



This is a bit different than what we are talking about though. Airlines have virtually an absolute power to remove passengers if it's due to safety reasons. A weight restriction would be a safety matter.

Here the debate about boarding and "denied boarding" has more to do with the contractual aspects.

But again like I said, I bet to the FAA or DOT, United will "officially" claim a reason other than simply denied boarding due to overbooking as the reason they removed this man.

Since the US Transportation code was raised earlier, which I take to mean the U.S. Code section on Transportation, 49 USC Section 42301(i)(3)(A) would seem to contradict the earlier statement that passengers are considered "boarded" only when the aircraft doors have been closed.

The section states in part:

"awaiting takeoff after the aircraft doors have been closed or after passengers have been boarded if the passengers have not been advised they are free to deplane"

If aircraft doors closing and passengers boarded were one and the same, the code would not have treated the two as two separate events. The language of "or after passengers have been boarded..." would imply that a passenger can be considered "boarded" prior to the closing of the aircraft doors.

Cheers, is it a website or document you're pulling all that from? The language used drives the brain mental, but welcome to the world of law. Everything procured and labelled in certain ways and terms.

The good news is, with all these combative passengers self-selecting themselves from flying with United in the future, it's far less likely that you'll witness a similar situation on United going forward.

The bad news is, if any other airline needs to bump people, the populace is being prepared to be as uncooperative as possible.

Not really, if most of us have learned one thing in here the airlines can by force bump you. In nearly all cases passengers voluntarily come forward because it's guaranteed air credit and/or rewards. The poster on the previous page linked me to some stats to show how little of the time it actually goes to involuntary.

Plus the majority of other airlines will have this sorted before people are on the plane.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

Cheers, is it a website or document you're pulling all that from? The language used drives the brain mental, but welcome to the world of law. Everything procured and labelled in certain ways and terms.

All of the code sections can be found on google. Cornell keeps a database of basically every US federal statute so they'll pop up first.

 

[chadskin]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

 

[Shouta]

This CEO is amazingly idiotic.

 

[Audioboxer]

Damn, $1,000 cash. Like I said, though, if someone is resisting something like that just move on and select someone else. I guarantee you if you only need 1 more person someone is going to take 1 grand. All of this including dragging someone off by force without the foresight to accept there will be another passenger quick enough to accept. 3 already had.

 

[NeOak]

All reports say it was $800, so someone lied in their report.

 

[old manatee]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

Holy shit.

 

[Savitar]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

These people are clueless.

All reports say it was $800, so someone lied in their report.

Yeah it was 800, but not 800 cash, it was 800 dollars in United credit for more flights etc.

 

[NeOak]

Damn, $1,000 cash. Like I said, though, if someone is resisting something like that just move on and select someone else. I guarantee you if you only need 1 more person someone is going to take 1 grand. All of this including dragging someone off by force without the foresight to accept there will be another passenger quick enough to accept. 3 already had.

They don't offer cash. It's always travel vouchers.

I've travelled with them for years.

 

[Doukou]

All reports say it was $800, so someone lied in their report.

In United vouchers also, which isn't mentioned in the report either.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Not sure if this has already been answered, but
-Was the guy they dragged off previously offered the $1000? (Ed: in vouchers? lol useless)
-How much did he pay for his flight?
-How did they pick people to bump?

 

[depths20XX]

That response by the CEO is fucking terrible. Why are paying customers already seated on the plane considered secondary to their employees? That goes against pretty much any other business procedure.

 

[NeOak]

In United vouchers also, which isn't mentioned in the report either.

Yeah, had they offered cash or gift cards instead of the shitty travel vouchers with expiration dates, someone would have gone for it.

 

[Audioboxer]

They don't offer cash. It's always travel vouchers.

I've travelled with them for years.

These people are clueless.



Yeah it was 800, but not 800 cash, it was 800 dollars in United credit for more flights etc.

In United vouchers also, which isn't mentioned in the report either.

Awman, the legal documents all say involuntary bumping is cash, on the spot. Voluntary is supposed to be vouchers.

 

[Trouble]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

Impressively tone deaf.

 

[NeOak]

Awman, the legal documents all say involuntary bumping is cash, on the spot. Voluntary is supposed to be vouchers.

Pfff It's United

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

"especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did" fuuuuuuuuuuuuck oooooooooooooff

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

"including up to an offer of $1000" means they didn't offer $1000 lol.

You either offered $1000 or you didn't. No "including up to". When i get witness testimony like this I know they're either lying or don't clearly recall something.

He's conflating what they did offer and what they were authorized to offer together to make it sound like they offered an amount closer to the invol statutory amount before going with the invol.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

Awman, the legal documents all say involuntary bumping is cash, on the spot. Voluntary is supposed to be vouchers.

The email doesn't say anyone was offered $1000. It just says it's part of the process. No one was offered any money in this situation but those who were involuntarily removed would've been eligible to receive 'up to $1000' afterwards. Whatever that means. Even $0 would count by the standards set out in the email

 

[Socivol]

So are United not going to take any responsibility for why this happened to begin with? It seems like they did some piss poor staffing and tried to fix it at the expense of paying customers. An oversight on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

 

[Audioboxer]

Pfff It's United

True, but within law it states cash on the spot is the requirement.

Also I dug up another take on the in cabin debate

But in this case, the passenger was already onboard and the airline wanted to take him back off, presumably in order to put another passenger in his seat. Does United have the right to do that? Yes, because Rule 25(A)2(b) of United’s Contract of Carriage gives its boarding priority rules:

The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

In this case, United said the passengers were being removed so that the airline could add crew members that needed to position to Louisville for flights in the morning. But in other instances it could be a passenger who had a more critical itinerary (perhaps a connection that would be missed) or even a higher elite status.

We spoke to Alexander Bachuwa, a New York attorney who has written for TPG in the past on legal issues regarding travel. “The bottom line is that airlines hold the power to deny someone boarding and to remove someone from the flight,” Bachuwa told us. “The legal issue may be whether the police used unnecessary force in dealing with the situation. I highly doubt they will be held liable. The passenger was asked to leave and did not, as bad as that sounds.”

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/

The email doesn't say anyone was offered $1000. It just says it's part of the process. No one was offered any money in this situation but those who were involuntarily removed would've been eligible to receive 'up to $1000' afterwards. Whatever that means. Even $0 would count by the standards set out in the email

Aviation law covers you legally for a minimum payout if you're forced to travel on another flight. I think the only way they can say no compensation is if it's under 2 hours you need to wait for another flight.

Edit: It's 1 hour, not 2

Know your rights for involuntary bumping

If you are bumped involuntarily and the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to get you to your final destination (including later connections) within one hour of your original scheduled arrival time, there is no compensation.

If the airline arranges substitute transportation that is scheduled to arrive at your destination between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one-way fare to your final destination that day, with a $650 maximum.

If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1300 maximum).

 

[depths20XX]

"We politely asked him to get off the plane he had already payed for and was seated in. Sure it was our fault for overbooking, but whatever. When he got mad about that we were unfortunately required to drag his ass out."

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

 

[Just_myles]

That dude got rekt. Bad look united.

For real, I would have taken the voucher and room and board.

 

[akira28]

So ultimately it was legal to help bloody the man's mouth, because they have the right to remove who ever, for...the safety of the public.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

True, but within law it states cash on the spot is the requirement.

Also I dug up another take on the in cabin debate






https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/



Aviation law covers you legally for a minimum payout if you're forced to travel on another flight. I think the only way they can say no compensation is if it's under 2 hours you need to wait for another flight.

Rule 25 is again about denying boarding and the priority they get to set even determining who to involuntarily deny. I don't see how that section says anything about removing a customer already boarded.

 

[NeOak]

So are United not going to take any responsibility for why this happened to begin with? It seems like they did some piss poor staffing and tried to fix it at the expense of paying customers. An oversight on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

You mean treating passengers as people instead of cattle?

That's never been The United Way

 

[Megasoum]

(via twitter)

 

[Pie and Beans]

CEO doubling down on blaming the passenger. I love the total weasel cunt language use all the time of how he raised his voice. What a villain. After people randomly tried to chuck him off a plane he was already seated on, he got a little heated! Then they showed him there was no need to be upset and forcefully tried to eject him like an insane person.

I have to assume the CEO has been lawyered and told to stick hard and fast to NO WRONGDOING HERE to avoid the inevitable mega-suit.

 

[Randy Monk]

It kind of annoys me that a lot of the news stories seem to make a big point of the passenger being a doctor as if that makes this worse. It really shouldn't matter if he was a doctor or not in this story, IMO. It's bad regardless.

But since it is brought up: Has any story identified the man, said what hospital he works at, what kind of doctor, etc? All I've seen is very generic "Doctor who had to see patients the next day" which leads to a lot of questions in my mind that absolutely don't matter in the case but I am still curious.

This is the doctors fellow colleague:

Are you happy now Zoidberg?

 

[NeOak]

True, but within law it states cash on the spot is the requirement.

Also I dug up another take on the in cabin debate






https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/



Aviation law covers you legally for a minimum payout if you're forced to travel on another flight. I think the only way they can say no compensation is if it's under 2 hours you need to wait for another flight.

Dude, have you ever flown United? I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't be defending them like you are.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

(via twitter)

If I were these other Airlines, I'd be offering a free flight or two to the dude just to rub salt in United's PR wound.

 

[Miracle]

(via twitter)

 

[Pryce]

(via twitter)

southwest is legit. love them.

 

[Nabae]

That footage of him being back on board with blood dripping from his mouth as he repeats "I have to go home" is absolutely heartbreaking. This has been bothering me all day. My blood is still boiling.

 

[mentallyinept]

(via twitter)

This isn't from Southwest...

 

[Trouble]

southwest is legit. love them.

I'm pretty sure that's not from Southwest's twitter.

 

[Loudninja]

Man its like the more PR release the worse it gets.

 

[Doukou]

If I were these other Airlines, I'd be offering a free flight or two to the dude just to rub salt in United's PR wound.

In all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if other American Airlinelines try to avoid talking about this that much, more rules to help the passengers instead of the airlines would be bad for them.

 

[Audioboxer]

Dude, have you ever flown United? I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't be defending them like you are.

The one thing that annoys me in here. Talking about law and what can or can't be done is not defending the airline. It's quite clear many posters in here myself included have been thrust into a debate about law, regulations and what airlines can and can't do outside of a bubble of just going "fuck United Airlines". Nothing wrong with those posts but also nothing wrong with posters having debates in the aftermath of this going viral and doing our best to research and bring up evidence. Many journalists are doing this too as so many people are talking about something they knew very little of until now, bumping.

All of this exists for every airline, so what is and isn't true for United is the same for them all. United's disgrace is how they handled this situation outside of the law debates. However, that doesn't mean posters aren't interested in knowing if what they did is actually legal (unfortunately yes, even the force bit).

Either we don't want this ever happening again, or if it can happen again people sure as hell need to know in advance what they can and can't do.

 

[commedieu]

(via twitter)

That's not real? Is it?

 

[RBH]

Holy shit at that poll, lmao

 

[psynergylover]

(via twitter)

LOL!!!! Perfection!!!

 

[newtypepilot]

Amazes me how badly their PR is handling this incident.

This is the CEO's email to his employees:

lol wut?
-$1000? all I've read is that they offered up to $800.

I love how he said "especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did". He's your fucking customer that was already seated. That's why.

 

[depths20XX]

That's not real? Is it?

Nah, don't see it on their twitter.