That's the NYT report. Here's something in the WaPo report that isn't in the Times:
“He says, ‘Nope. I’m not getting off the flight. I’m a doctor and have to see patients tomorrow morning,’” [said Tyler Bridges, the passenger who made the video, about the man who refused to leave]...I can't bring myself to look at the video, but I'm not as sympathetic to this person as most people seem to be. I don't like the bumping of passengers, but if it's going to happen, and if the airline uses some random method to select the ones to bump, I don't see how the chosen person should be allowed to avoid the bad luck by refusing to leave.
The man became angry as the manager persisted, Bridges said, eventually yelling. “He said, more or less, ‘I’m being selected because I’m Chinese.’”
Obviously, choosing people by race would be unacceptable, but this man seems to have resorted to that accusation only after his go-to I'm-a-doctor argument failed. That is, at first he argued in favor of discrimination, that he should get a special doctor privilege. That amounts to an argument that people with less important jobs should be discriminated against — class discrimination.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the airline to have a policy of giving doctors a special privilege over other passengers, but if it hasn't, I don't see why the doctor should get a different outcome through civil disobedience tactics, physically resisting. If the airline actually had a race discrimination policy, I would support resistance, but I don't believe that accusation. I think this was someone who, like everybody else who didn't volunteer to leave, wanted to stay on the flight. Should everyone willing to resist get to stay and the burden of the bumping fall on the people who are too polite and unselfish to go into resistance mode? I just don't understand how caving into people like this will work.
And, again, I don't like bumping, but my understanding is that airline fares are kept low by overbooking and bumping when needed. Doesn't everyone know they are exposed to that risk when they buy an airline ticket?
ADDED: This post already had a "hypocrisy" tag (aimed at the doctor), so check me for hypocristy by reading what I wrote back in 2004 about a bumping incident involving my sons:
Boo to American Airlines for demanding that one of my sons get off the plane going from O'Hare to Madison at 9 o'clock at night because the plane was overweight. I know there are real safety concerns about weight and removing one person may make a difference and a little weight really does matter on those small planes, but at 9 o'clock at night, with no later flight to take, couldn't you offer more freebies until you get a volunteer? Two people did volunteer, but American only needed to kick off one person and so it would only offer one of these two the measly $200 travel certificate, and the two volunteers didn't want to split up. So one of my sons had to leave, to get the next bus to Madison, at 11 pm, and arrive at the Memorial Union at 2 am--on a cold night, with no shelter open, and nothing warm to wear, because he hadn't worn a coat in Austin, and his luggage had traveled on the plane.
Many passengers on the plane witnessed how rudely my sons were treated and at least one came up afterwards to say how offended he was and how he was going to write a letter to the airline about it. What I simply cannot understand is: 1. If you are going to do something like this at least be scrupulously polite while you're doing it (instead, the method used was: if you don't leave right now, we'll still make you leave and you won't even get the $200 certificate!) and 2. Try much harder to get volunteers (for a second $200 travel certificate, the two volunteers would have left willingly, and everyone else on the plane would have kept a positive opinion about the airline; instead, many people felt really bad about the airline). By the way, I think I would have volunteered in that situation, because the idea of a small plane at its weight limit scares me. That's another reason why they should go for volunteers: pressuring someone makes everyone feel anxious and subject of the dangerous weight of the plane has got to make for some exquisitely bad feeling aboard!
It's interesting that there were seats for everyone on the plane, but the weight didn't add up right. Do you think in that situation the airline ought to pick on the heaviest passengers? Actually, I don't. Yet if I were in that situation, seeing someone being pressured off the plane because of the weight of the plane--especially someone obviously under the 185 weight airlines assume people weigh--I'd be glancing around at passengers to see who was bringing the most weight on the plane and thinking uncharitable thoughts. But that's one more reason why the airline should escalate the inducements until they get a volunteer.
UPDATE: The certificate was for $250, not $200.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR: The airline was not singling out the heaviest passengers--my sons are way under 185. My point is that if the plane is overweight and that someone is going to have to leave, a certain common sense suggests asking the heaviest person to leave. One person is inconvenienced, either way, but the maximum weight is removed. If you see them trying to oust a thin person, don't you tend to think they ought to be going after somebody big? But they don't, for whatever reason. Fear of lawsuits? Desire not to seem mean? But they were mean!
CHRIS ADDS:
A couple points you missed on the blog about the American Airlines thing:
1) Three or four women working the gate inside the airport knew, and told John and me, that the airplane was overloaded, and even while it was being delayed never made a single announcement that it was overloaded. They knowingly overloaded the plane because they were too lazy to make an announcement over the loadspeaker that they needed a volunteer.
2) What they should do, if they're going to FORCE someone off the plane, is single out the person who checked the heaviest bag. They have that information--they weigh every single checked bag--and they could easily do it that way, something based on weight, without insulting people for being fat. Instead, they got rid of a thin guy, left all the [heaviest people] on the plane, and even left his bag on the plane.
Also, people inside the plane yelled at the guy for not allowing the couple that volunteered to leave the plane. Plus, they were completely unapologetic and even threatening towards us from beginning to end!
পোস্টগুলি
২৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 269 এর 201 – থেকে 269On United, and most airlines (excluding Southwest) once you have a seat assignment you are good to go. The overbooked DO NOT get a seat assignment. I have been Premier 1K with United for years, and I would pitch a shit fit if they tried to bump me for crew after I was seated. I have a lot of sympathy for the passenger. I think people should resist if the airlines pull bullshit moves like that.
Ann would have made for a good German in the 1930s and early 1940s.
Ann Althouse said...As for the free market, which you seem to like, you're ignoring the part of the market that occurs at the front end, when the passenger gets a particular price that is what it is in part because the airline retains the power to bump.
Imagine how cheap flights would be if only the airline would quadruple book every plane!
Am I imagining things, or has everyone swapped sides on these "implicit fairness" arguments?
I mean, just thinking back, remember the stink about the UC Davis cop who pepper sprayed the hell out of a bunch of protesters? I really don't remember many people sticking up for the cop--but by the terms we're using now his actions were 100% justified and correct, right?
"It's the airline's call, the guy was being unreasonable, the guy didn't listen to lawful orders, so for the good of the plane/society at large (in regards to the flight) force was used to remove him."
Ok, I buy it. But:
"It's the school's/police force's call, the protesters were purposefully being unreasonable, they didn't listen to lawful orders to disperse and stop blocking the path, so for the good of society at large (in regards to people who wanted to use the paths) force was used to remove them."
Same thing, right?! But anyone backing the cop in that case was a vicious bully, an authoritarian, a jackbooted thug-worshiper. I mean, sure, we all laughed (hippies gettin' a face full o'mace is always gonna make ya chuckle) but the mainstream reaction was horror, right? Did the Professor weigh in on that one? I don't remember.
At any rate I think it'll inspire a new slogan, Mad Men style: Fly United - If You Can.
No charge for that one.
"Ann Althouse said...As for the free market, which you seem to like, you're ignoring the part of the market that occurs at the front end, when the passenger gets a particular price that is what it is in part because the airline retains the power to bump."
Where am I given a chance to pay that higher price?
Actually, in my case I may. I fly business class now, because flying economy is so brutal (literally in the case of this man) though I don't know if that protects me from being bumped. But putting that aside, Althouse's argument is bogus, because the airlines do not, to my knowledge, offer people the option of paying a higher price to protect against bumping.
This is going to cost United way more than it would have to buy off 4 passengers. Stupid move by a middle manager.
If the airline had placed the deadheading crew aboard at the last minute, which necessitated the involuntary bumping of a paid passenger, then the dh crew was on duty and likely needed to either operate that aircraft after its arrival or operate another flight on another aircraft upon arrival. These would be the only reasons they would bump paying passengers to allow crew to occupy seats. Driving would not be an option here.
Here are some of the regs on bumping:
http://www.travelsense.org/Consumer/consumerdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=13894
Maybe there need to be new regs.
.
.
.
I would have treated those police-state cops like Islamic hijackers.
Airlines treat people as if they traveling on a lark. Some are I suppose, but most have a sick parent to care for, a funeral to attend, a career-impacting presentation to give. What the hell good does a voucher do me if the entire reason I'm traveling evaporates if I show up a day late?
I have to chuckle at those who say the airlines need to be re regulated. Because I can't think of any other industry that has more regulation. The great thing is that nothing compares to the safety and speed of modern air travel. This situation is terrible and should have been avoided.
Original Mike said...
Maybe there need to be new regs.
This will cost United millions. It will never happen again. The market will solve this.
The worst thing to happen at this point would be for the government to get involved and "fix" this. I guarantee you will wish the government had stayed out of it if they do 'fix" it.
No one buys a ticket thinking they might get bumped. That's not part of the deal. Fuck that!
And that's why you always fly Southwest.
Seriously, United always treats their non first class customers like vermin. Most of the other big American carriers are only slightly better. Delta is even worse.
"This situation is terrible and should have been avoided."
How?
' An $800 voucher didn’t yield any volunteers ... (Federal law 14 CFR 250.5 protects consumers(?) by limiting how much an airline can offer)' http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2017/04/10/thanks-united-for-making-me-proud-to-be-a-former-delta-airlines-employee/
If I were on the jury when he sues United for $50 million I'd award him double that in punitive damages.
Ann, you are generally quite perspicacious. This sudden bout of not being so makes me wonder why would you see this as an overbooking issue. And perhaps garner the fig leaf of economics.
Imagine f the crew of four had showed up before boarding began. No issue, I would think. Anyone can be bumped. To my mind once people have boarded the Airline has shit its wad, as far as overbooking is concerned. Then it should be totally voluntary or they could have sent the crew members on Muniz's private jet.
Prof. Althouse - You seem to assume that United was acting within its contract rights here. I disagree. The relevant language in the contract says that a passenger may be "denied boarding involuntarily" in the event of overbooking. The problem is that the word "boarding" is susceptible to different interpretations, that is, it is ambiguous. It could mean just the act of physically getting on a plane and sitting in a seat. Or it could mean the act of getting on a plane and sitting in a seat until the plane takes off. I can imagine reasonable arguments for each. How would a court decide? Well, there's a rule of contract interpretation that says that in the case of a contract of adhesion, ambiguities are interpreted against the drafting party. This makes sense because the drafting party has the power to fix any ambiguities. Here, United is the party that drafted a contract of adhesion, and thus the court should (I won't say will because there's a lot of discretion in applying rules of contract interpretation) apply the interpretation favorable to the passenger and against United. That means that once the passenger was in his seat, United had no contractual right to remove him from his seat or the plane. That leaves United defenseless on the liability claims for assault and punitive damages although I suppose it can always argue damages.
Laslo wins the thread. Of course.
I think the auction solution is best. But the offers should be not vouchers or money, but time in the ring against the United CEO. With his hands tied behind his back. "I need a volunteer, will anybody take 2 minutes? No? Four minutes? Six minutes and a head-butt? You, sir? Thank you, 12B!"
Seriously, though: this was a failure of imagination by everyone in the chain of command. The entire airline hierarchy and business model has become incredibly rigid, thanks to terrorism, hub-and-spoke scheduling, razor-thin margins, regulations. One bad decision piled on the next --overbooking plus 4 crew plus poor auction policy plus poor auction sales technique plus resort to force plus lame PR response. Very expensive mistake. Who could have broken that chain of errors before it led to this: the gate agent? The captain? The security people? A little common sense and humanity, and the old wisdom that "the customer is always right," would have done wonders.
"Whatever they tell you to do, you have to do."
-- Sort of like the IRS. Pay first, then litigate.
"It needs to become the law. What is more fair than upping the payoff until spmebody takes it? I have less than zero sympathy for the airlines. "
Could a cabal of 300+ some people all book the same flight then refuse to leave until the airline bids so high that they're all compensated and then some?
Either or, I think someone said this, but I agree. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Plenty of overreaction and poor decision making by all parties. The crucial turning point seems to be the random selection of the four passengers to be deplaned after the airline personnel abandoned the compensation efforts. What was the methodology and was it really both the doctor and his wife as reported by the BBC? That could support his perception that they were picked because they were Chinese, and if it wasn’t both he and his wife was he given the option of her being the one deplaned if his Monday obligations were so critical?
They should consider better ways of handling the overbooking problem now that offers of flight vouchers are not enough to get any takers.
1) First, offering "vouchers" instead of straight up cash just isn't compelling enough. If you had a lousy experience with that airline because they bumped you and inconvenienced you, you might not be so eager to take another flight with them. Make it straight cash!
2) Offer tickets with a slight upcharge for flyers who absolutely do not want to risk being bumped. There are times I'm flying when I would be annoyed but could live with taking a later flight, vs. facing a significant hardship if I had to do so, and would pay extra for the privilege of knowing I won't be picked to be bumped.
3) Raise the "bump bonus" enough to get some takers. Cash is good, but maybe the next flight you get them on you put them in first class? Maybe the hotel you're putting them in will be an upscale hotel? Maybe let the bumped passenger wait in your VIP lounge? At some point the offer will be enough to get someone to trade their convenience for it.
4) Find alternative transportation options for those bumped to get them to their destination sooner. The difference between being delayed a few hours and having to wait until the next day could be crucial. If other flights aren't available that day, maybe another airline has flights available, or there might even be a train covering that distance.
Clearly, the current offers aren't enough in some instances. If the airline wants to keep overbooking they're going to have to figure out how to make this work. Otherwise, we'll see a lot more instances like this.
The police officers that actually injured the man were Department of Aviation police employed by the City of Chicago.
So we have cascade of questions:
1. Should an airline be allowed to overbook (to maximize revenue, but also to offer the best ticket prices)?
2. Should an airline that overbooks be allowed to remove people involuntarily (as opposed to raising their payoff price to get a volunteer)?
3. If an airline is allowed to remove people involuntarily, can they use physical force to do it?
4. What are the constraints on the force they are allowed to use?
In my mind, a yes answer to 3 is extremely problematic and excessive force should be prosecutable. If peaceful paying customers on an overbooked flight cannot be removed involuntarily, the payoff price for a volunteer is an appropriate price signal to the airline.
"I think that's what happens all the time. They have to get people boarded to stay on schedule. They've overbooked because they're predicting some no shows. They don't have a final count until the last minute. The people need to be on the plane. It's not an "absurd mistake," it's just airlines operating efficiently because people want low fares."
This is one of those posts that make you rethink your opinion of the hostess. The above is simply not true. I have never seen anyone bumped after boarding, and I fly a lot more than Althouse, who makes a point of not travelling.
Furthermore, she makes no note of the salient fact that the plane was not overbooked or oversold, but that the passengers were being bumped for United Airlines employees who needed to be in another city.
That would make me mad has hell.
Bottom line, Congress allows overbooking, so Congress has sided with the corporations. If Congress decides different, it would be historic. Therefore, unlikely.
Next case...
But Althouse, of course you have taken a position on the use of force. The issue here is whether the airline was justified in using force, and you took a position right up front by stating that you were unsympathetic to the passenger.
Maybe you regret your early comments now, as more information about exactly what happened has made its way to you in spite of your refusal to educate yourself on the facts before expressing an opinion about them. However, it's a little late. You did, in fact, take a public position in favor of the use of physical force as one party's self-help remedy for the other party's violation of a civil contract. It would be more honest to acknowledge that.
i see the comments at the NYTimes are fast approaching 5,000, and the most-liked comments have over 4,000 thumbs up.
This story seems to have hit a nerve.
The flying public has put up with a massive degradation of the flying experience, including the loss of legroom in the cabin, the excessive baggage charges, topped off by the gropers at the TSA. It's time for some pushback. This assault and battery is a bridge too far. United saying "procedures" only makes it worse.
Once you are seated in the cabin, the "right" to bump has to end. How did United not know that a crew was coming? Are they just that incompetent?
I'm disappointed the other passengers stood by and watched it happen.
"Could a cabal of 300+ some people all book the same flight then refuse to leave until the airline bids so high that they're all compensated and then some?"
No. The airline controls how many tickets they sell.
Ann, regarding your sons - why couldn't the airline have removed some luggage from the plane to reduce the weight and sent it on later instead of kicking your sons off the plane? The luggage delay would be inconvenient, but not as bad as missing a connecting flight, important event etc.
Regarding the practice of bumping passengers - it seems to me that if the airlines can bump passengers at the last minute ALL airline tickets should be refundable with no extra charge.
@320Busdriver, the plane took off 2 1/2 hours late for an hour and 20 minute flight. Driving would not be much slower. If United was that desperate to get the flight crew to Louisville they should have grabbed an empty Saab 340 or whatever else in a small turboprop they had sitting unused at their Chicago hub. Bumping paying passengers for dead heads is not how you make a profit, especially if you're on the hook to feed and psy for accommodations overnight for the bumped passengers.
The "police" (and I use that term loosely indeed) in this case made a critical error. They did not place the supposed doctor under arrest for failure to leave the plane as directed. Then his resistance would have justified these supposed cops resotring to physical violence to remove him from the plane. The aforementioned assumes that those "police" have the authority to arrest uncooperative passengers - doubtful, since they're wearing jeans as part of their uniforms. Keystone cops anyone?
Jimmy Kimmel's new United ad.
Actually Owen wins or ties for first. The only thing I disagree with in your post is the part about razor thin margins. The airlines are "currently" making TONS of money, although United falls to the bottom of the majors when you compare profit margins. I stated that this should have been avoided and intended to describe how, like accidents, the chain of errors needed to be broken by someone, but decided not to. You hit it right on the head. My question would be why the LEO's escalated to injure the passenger, but I have not viewed the video.
Yes, the airlines are making tons of money right now.
The problem is the obsession with 100% full planes. Question: If you book your planes to 100%, how do you deal with the unexpected. Answer: You can't.
Raise the damn prices a few percent or deal with the fallout in a responsible manner.
Maybe you regret your early comments now, as more information about exactly what happened has made its way to you in spite of your refusal to educate yourself on the facts before expressing an opinion about them. However, it's a little late. You did, in fact, take a public position in favor of the use of physical force as one party's self-help remedy for the other party's violation of a civil contract. It would be more honest to acknowledge that.
----------------------------
I think the update, about her sons, makes her figure, "It happened to us. Why shouldn't it happen to others too?"
One curious fact: the doctor, and his wife -- who was travelling with him, initially inquired about being the volunteer to deplane. Then, he was told the next flight was not until the next mid-day. So he refused as he needed to be there early. (presumably, when he inquired about being bumped, he thought he could perhaps still fly out that night...)
In ann's story,
2 passengers had originally volunteered to take the $250 vouchers and volunteer to be bumped. But the plane only needed one person off, so they would not pay both passengers to deplane. Was this couple both of ann's sons?
If so, I think the moral of the story is... don't inquire about the possibility of being bumped. If the Chinese man, and ann's one son, were ultimately chosen because they were potential volunteers, then that might signal to the airlines that you are willing, but just could not reach a negotiable price... So you're chosen.
The saddest part of this whole story:
All the Americans who sat and watched a man being assaulted.
NO ONE rose to confront the police officers. Only the one woman kept saying, "My God. Look what you did to him. This is WRONG."
It's telling that a law professor condones assault over a civil matter, in this day and age.
Might Indeed Makes Right in modern-day America.
I blame Bush. Seriously.
Professional lady said...
Ann, regarding your sons - why couldn't the airline have removed some luggage from the plane to reduce the weight and sent it on later instead of kicking your sons off the plane? The luggage delay would be inconvenient, but not as bad as missing a connecting flight, important event etc.
------------------------
Because ann's son was a good boy, did not resist, and did what he was told.
Sometimes they really do pick out who they think will be the most submissive, and not give them any trouble. That's quicker and easier than taking off baggage.
Americans should thank the Chinese man who resisted,
and the passenger with moral fiber who taped the episode and spoke out, "This is wrong."
God Bless America.
We need less "good Germans" like anne althouse if they condone such face-bashing for profit...
Original Mike said...
"Could a cabal of 300+ some people all book the same flight then refuse to leave until the airline bids so high that they're all compensated and then some?"
No. The airline controls how many tickets they sell.
---------------------
I'm sure somebody could hack their booking apps, to overfill a plane and see how United acts.
Sometimes, you have to play dirty to confront dirty tactics.
The lawsuit, the publicity, the boycotts, a good hacking (???) could make United wise up: you do not treat human beings this way.
What goes around comes around if you are willing to put profits over people, and think nothing of bashing someone's face in because you erred, and need others to bail you out over your own mistakes.
Used to fly a lot, between getting back to CO every other weekend for my kid and business. Did over 100 segments a year on both United and Southwest on multiple occasions. Did see auctions several times on SWA with boarded passengers. Told us to press the attendant buzzer first. It worked just fine. But that was SWA, which is a lot looser than UA, AA, etc. which makes flying the airline much more enjoyable. It is weird no longer being a frequent flyer (we probably didn't hit 10 flights last year). I just don't see this sort of thing happening on Southwest. United, American, and, yes, Delta, sure. United long ago quit trying to really be the friendly skies. Even when I was flying them regularly, some 15-20 years ago, their employees tended to be fairly humorless. 50 year old flight attendants waiting for retirement. (I mostly flew in and out of Denver, which was a highly popular hub for employees, typically requiring a lot of seniority). Southwest was a breath of fresh air. Get the same vibe, maybe even more, with startup airlines like Frontier (which then screws it up by charging for every little thing, from luggage to peanuts).
Yes, United had to get a crew somewhere, hence the bumping. But not having a standby crew there was a business decision. Not planning ahead, and holding seats for the crew, was a business screwup, and, really, a business decision. They should have been able to predict it, to some extent. Almost invariably, with airlines that assign seats, some people are ticketed without seat assignments. I have been stuck on Delta a bit in recent years, and it seems fairly routine - low price ticket, two weeks out, means your seat is assigned at the airport. No doubt their frequent fliers get seat assignments even a day or two out (often in 1st class even though they aren't paying any more for the flight). Easy solution would be to reserve maybe 4 seats for potential crew emergencies until the last minute. My view is that they should have been predicting their potential crew scheduling issues in advance, and not released the last bunch of seats until the last minute. (I have on multiple occasions gone down the jetway with no assurances of being seated, and had to turn around several times - which you agree to in advance). And why wasn't at least one of the pilots up in the cockpit, and the flight attendants in jump seats? Probably union contracts or something.
Yes, in the real world, shit happens. But I refuse to believe that they couldn't have found 4 people willing to be delayed if offered enough of an incentive. They just didn't think that they needed to, so didn't. Someone somewhere in the organization decided that $x was all that they would offer for a seat, and when they got to that point, the auction was over. I have taken advantage of these offers on multiple occasions. For example, when flying back from seeing my kid every other weekend for a decade and a half, I would often consider the offers. If they got high enough, I would jump in. $100? No. $200. Maybe. $400? Definitely. Meant my flight in 2 weeks was paid for. My point is that inevitably with better than 100 paying customers on a flight, there will be some where money is more important than time. At least on this flight (on my way to Denver, I never considered taking such an offer). At $1,000 for most domestic flights, you would have to fight to give up your seat (when flying UA a lot, and it looked potentially tight, I often was able to use my frequent flyer status to jump ahead of the line there). The limit on what they were willing to offer to buy a seat back from a paying customer was a business decision that came with a downside, as we saw. In the end, it may have been a bad one, but someone made it, nevertheless.
"Sometimes they really do pick out who they think will be the most submissive, and not give them any trouble. That's quicker and easier than taking off baggage."
No, they don't just pick out people using subjective means. When weight reduction is required an adult passenger counts for 3 to 5 times what a single bag does. So it is much easier to accomplish and avoids sending people without their bags. If it is a matter of payload vs fuel it is usually better to conduct a fuel stop rather than bumping. This winter was unusual in that west bound transcons faced this frequently due to extreme jetstream winds.
And why wasn't at least one of the pilots up in the cockpit, and the flight attendants in jump seats? Probably union contracts or something.
Precisely
No, they don't just pick out people using subjective means. When weight reduction is required an adult passenger counts for 3 to 5 times what a single bag does. So it is much easier to accomplish and avoids sending people without their bags.
--------------------
Easier for whom?
If the airlines don't have goons physically protecting their profits, is it still easier to remove a person, than to remove baggage?
How do you know how they chose both the Chinese man and anne's son to disembark? If her two boys originally both volunteered to get off, as did the Chinese man and his wife allegedly, then I would submit that inquiring about the compensation made them targets. Not some random lottery.
320Busdriver said...
And why wasn't at least one of the pilots up in the cockpit, and the flight attendants in jump seats? Probably union contracts or something.
Precisely
-------------------------
All for the bottom line...
United needs to rethink its policies, and systematically CHANGE.
Those of you in the biz, the frequent fliers and all those making excuses are too caught up in this to understand: You don't get to assault a person in order to profit. Damn your stock prices, your employees, and your policies.
320Busdriver said...
"Sometimes they really do pick out who they think will be the most submissive, and not give them any trouble. That's quicker and easier than taking off baggage."
No, they don't just pick out people using subjective means.
---------------------------------
If a 300-pound obese black person potentially refuses to move, do you think he'd be "chosen" by random in the first place?
Look for somebody whom you think will give you no trouble...
The Chinese man is a hero, in my eyes and in the eyes of all of China apparently, for what he did.
He took a beating for all of us,
to make a point. Have we learned?
You don't get to assault people to save an erring corporation money.
Not even in America.
Until now I assumed this was on a United flight, but it was on a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines. Republic is currently under ch 11 reorganization. This might explain some of what happened in that if you are on an "express" flight you are, in most cases, going to be dealing with B scale employees from the gate agent, to the flight crew, to the guy loading the bags and fueling the plane. By B scale I mean, younger, less experienced and paid much less than legacy employees. It does not surprise me one bit that the gate agent(s) boarding this flight would not have dealt with the situation in the best possible manner. I would not be surprised if they were on the job for a week either. So no surprise that this went waaaay south. Had it been a 737/320 legacy flight I doubt it would have come to this, but airlines have to match capacity to demand and as long as the legacy carriers engage in subcontracting to the lowest bidder the public needs to be aware of what they are purchasing when they book travel.
After checking I found that United also operated another "express" flight to SDF on Sunday night. United express flight 4771 operated by Trans States Airlines has a scheduled departure time of 9PM and it did operate Sunday evening, just hours after this incident.
The later flight, a smaller 50 seat jet was probably also full, but it opens up options that news reports claim did not exist.
"The later flight, a smaller 50 seat jet was probably also full..."
It was probably overbooked.
"...as the legacy carriers engage in subcontracting to the lowest bidder the public needs to be aware of what they are purchasing when they book travel.'
I am currently planning a trip from Madison to Sydney and will be checking a large telescope case. I have done this trip 4 times now. The Dallas to Sydney flight is on an A380 (Qantas) but the Madison leg is on a regional carrier and a dinky plane. I've decided to rent a car and drive to Dallas rather than risk the front end of the trip going south (no pun intended).
. I've decided to rent a car and drive to Dallas rather than risk the front end of the trip going south (no pun intended).
American flys md80's and airbii out of mke if you want to get there in a quicker and safer manner than driving.
@320Busdriver:
My wife and I have been trying to find an alternative and we looked at leaving from Milwaukee, which would be great, but there must have been some problem. I think the problem was we want the connecting flight from Sydney to Christchurch (which is the ultimate destination) to be on Emirates (again, to accommodate the telescope)and that wasn't offered if we began in Milwaukee, only if we begin in Madison or Dallas. Don't know if a travel agent could get us that combination of flights. BTW, this is for a trip about 11 months out.
What's a "airbii"?
I do everything I can to maximize my chances. I'll be flying business class. Also think I'll enroll in TSA precheck as I'll be bringing the telescope mirror as carry-on luggage (this is the first time I'll be bringing the telescope and I'm pretty nervous about it).
I think that someone above noted this, but I find it interesting, from a legal point of view, that the policies tend to talk about denying boarding, and not about ejecting already boarded passengers. As someone noted, contracts of adhesion are typically interpreted against the drafter. And, it could be argued that the ejection of the passenger was not due to overbooking of the airplane, but, rather, for the convenience of the airline. When the passenger boarded, the plane was probably not really overbooked, but only became so when United said, oh, wait, we need to get a crew somewhere, and we will just evict some already boarded passengers to accommodate our business needs. Not sure that the passenger can still get this to court, but if they can, it won't go well with UA.
Noted that this may be minor as a problemfor United, as their stock has been in free fall today being the bigger one.
United's market cap is down $800 million so far. Great news if you were shorting the stock.
If UAL is in your portfolio, you best sell now, and rebuy at a much lower price in a couple of months, after they replace this incompetent CEO. Every time he opens his mouth he makes it worse.
This incident is taking on a life of its own, because everyone can relate to it. This is textbook bad management, the exact opposite of the Tylenol scare years ago.
TSA Precheck used to be great. But recently, it appears to have caught on, and on one recent trip through security, the line there was notably longer than through regular security.
Just got my partner TSA Prechecked. We were running maybe 75% for her being included on mine when we traveled on the same ticket. Of course, that always opened up the question of why my SWA boarding number was always one ahead of hers. In any case, she is the one who really needs Precheck, except that she still usually gets patted down anyway, which means we don't tend to save that much time. Full body scanners are maybe better for her, with all the metal in her body.
In any case, the big problem with flying with her is that she doesn't like waiting around the airport, and tries to cut things close. Several times I have had to pay for rebooking her when her daughter got her to the airport a little late, and TSA had long lines. Inevitably, after lying to her about flight times, etc, I have to appologize to her about waiting by the gate. I, having flown way too much, always have books with me, so am just fine getting to the gate with plenty of time to spare.
I think that -$800 million in market cap is very likely to get their CEO booted. As it should. And, hopefully, made radioactive in the CEO market.
"What's a 'airbii'?"
Plural for "Airbus" -- used in this case, I assume, because they fly more than one type.
"In any case, the big problem with flying with her is that she doesn't like waiting around the airport, and tries to cut things close.'
I'll do anything to avoid missing a connecting flight. I've bumped my layover in Dallas on the Madison to Sydney flight to 12 hrs from 5 hrs when the 5 hr layover proved insufficient on one trip.
Thanks Kirk.
"I think that -$800 million in market cap is very likely to get their CEO booted. As it should. And, hopefully, made radioactive in the CEO market.'
Here's hoping, but the stock will probably be back where it was by the end of the week.
Jim Gust observes: This incident is taking on a life of its own, because everyone can relate to it.
Right, JIm. That is the crux of it. Airline passengers are sick of being treated like cattle and this was a culmination of United's contempt for their customers.
"Here's hoping, but the stock will probably be back where it was by the end of the week."
That's what they said about Target after the bathroom fiasco. They still haven't recovered, mostly because they are still in denial over it. Sometimes these situations take on a life of their own.
United was so obviously so far out of line, I see a great many people venting their rage at the loss of the once great airline industry. The abuse of airline passengers is going to stop.
United seems to thing that they are too big to fail. That's why they can blame the passenger for their own serial mistakes. Perhaps we can test whether they really are too big to fail.
Watching Althouse troll her own blog is a tiresome, but increasingly common thing around here.
But now she's in *favor* of jack-booted thugs kicking the crap out of airline passengers, because law and stuff.
Incredible.
I've been reading this blog since 2010, but I think I'm done here.
The nameless one:
Those of you in the biz, the frequent fliers and all those making excuses are too caught up in this to understand: You don't get to assault a person in order to profit. Damn your stock prices, your employees, and your policies.
4/11/17, 10:28 AM
& you, Rob M...
I'd like to present the other side, just some points not a comprehensive response.
Let's see, I've seen the still picture, I haven't seen the video but could, I read up to #247 of what's been presented here, I don't believe I followed her link.
Now, let me tell you something that you may not have considered. As on a ship, on an airliner, the captain is sole master before God, because that's just the fucking way it is. If he decides, for the good of the flight airline passengers and crew, that the you have to be thrown out of the plane at 35000 feet, you're going. If you don't accept that you shouldn't get on the airplane.
So from that viewpoint,
1) they should have avoided this with more operational or management flexibility such as comping both volunteer passengers. Huge cost all round.
2) that said, once the decision was made, it's regrettable that they could not efficiently subdue one slight middle-aged man. If the incompetent police are not to blame, we need better tools. Perhaps curare epipens or next generation stun guns.
Or an inflatable collar with an airtight hood or a bag to go over the subject's head on the assumption that he'll quit struggling before he suffocates, maybe you have control over the flow of oxygen or aerosol medications to the subject.
I'm quite serious. I have no trouble removing non compliant parties from an aircraft. That should only be done efficiently and not wantonly but if you can't do that, it's not your airplane.
It was hugely impolitic, but the airlines have their process, they have IMHO the greatest need, right and knowledge to prioritize the movement of people and equipment as necessary to maintain their operations. Discretion and customer service would be wise but they must have the right to kick you off for personnel the deem essential.
Question, was it a live on duty United or Republic flight crew or was it guests or deadheaders or people using those privileges like the leggings people?
3) mentally ill passenger? Or super asshole? He needs to go through the mill and we all see what his deal is. Probably won't happen as he's a sacred victim. I suppose as I write this he's dropping dead. Yes fine I'm the bad guy.
4) "because I'm Chinese?" Could this be some triple cushion bank-shot psyop by China trying to make an oblique response to Trump's attack on Syria and the Trump administration's forceful rhetoric on North Korea? Just throwing it out there for the Twilight Zone fans.
5) Ann, you have displayed this before, and I don't understand the conscious philosophical tactic you employ when you deliberately arrange to keep yourself ignorant of relevant information in a case. Perhaps you think that it is not relevant and then it would be prejudicial. Is there a reason you don't say that? Or what the actual reason is? There is some opacity here.
Here are a few facts:
I have been removed from an aircraft after boarding. It was a matter of the aircraft being overweight due to weather. It happens. It is necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft. I did not behave like a child when it happened.
From what it sounds like, the people were seated, and then some connecting crew arrived, perhaps from a late connecting flight. If these flight crew did not get on board, there would be an airplane (maybe two or three) full of people who would not be flying for HOURS. Not every destination has simultaneous flights. So it would have to be proven to me that the airline acted in bad faith, since most carriers do have reciprocal jump seat agreements. If the other (overbooked) airlines could have taken them, they would have...for free!
What exactly is the legal liability for having to cancel an entire aircraft full of people?
Granted, how could the airline know that their bumped passenger, instead of dealing with to the circumstance phlegmatically, would instead behave like a three year old. One would assume that an adult would understand that sometimes life does not go your own way. (Oh...this was a DOCTOR...never mind)
Finally, when the hostess asks you to leave, there isn't much of a legal leg to stand on...which is why he went limp and decided to be dragged off like a spoiled child
Ann--The regulation states that airlines get to kick people off but they have to reimburse them 400% of the ticket price or $1350, whichever is lower (learned this from a pilot friend of mine).
Airline staff will offer lower amounts because it saves them money. Regardless there is no regulation which states they have to start a 'bidding war' to bribe people to leave. The law is clear; if you get kicked off you get paid, but you still have to get off. There is zero excuse for David Dao's behavior.
As the dust settled, several things have come out. First and foremost, this was not a case of denied boarding. The flight was not oversold at the time that the passengers were seated. The contract of carriage or federal regulations don't apparently give UA the right to deplane people for this sort of thing. Second, as noted above, the regs about compensation involve floors (minimums), not ceilings (maximums). And they only apply to overselling and consequential denial of boarding. They could have offered more, and done so in cash, instead of in vouchers that typically expire in a year. Third, the airport cops probably didn't have legal justication for physically assaulting and removing the passenger. Fourth - he is a senior citizen who ended up in the hospital, very likely with a concussion (from hitting his head on the ground). Also he is Asian, and this is apparently being played hard in China as evidence of capitalist brutality. Not going to do well with United's (formerly) lucrative Asian market. Note also that the known troublemaker, which was repeatedly mentioned, likely just shares the same name - essentially intentionally a wrong identity. Also, this was a United Express flight, flown by Republic Airlines, currently in Chapter 11, which helps explain the staffing issues, and why UA cut things so close at their biggest hub. Of course, that only gives the good doctor one more defendant to sue, since UA is also on the hook, having sold the tickets, scheduled the flights, etc. Because this was not denied boarding due to overselling of seats (protected by UA's carriage contract and federal refs), but rather forced eviction of a seated, paying, customer for the convenience of United (in favor of its non-paying must-fly employees), there is a good chance that this can and will end up in court. For a lot of money.
Poor planning on an airline's part
is not an emergency on my part.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন