United Airlines

[woolybug25]

Not trolling you here, genuinely curious. How do you remove someone without using force that equates to assault if they physically refuse to move?

I would say there is a lot you can do outside of smashing a dudes face into the seat and dragging his unconscious body down the aisle in front of women and children. There were three of them, maybe grab him by the arms, handcuff him, whatever.

1) It sucks getting bumped from a flight.

2) He was going to be compensated for it and then some by the airline.

3) The airline has the right to do what they did.

4) When police officers tell you to get up and you don't do it, what do you expect to happen?

Unfortunate situation + poor decision making by the customer + keyboard warriors on Twitter = PR disaster.

The security guards did not have the right to assault him. You will see that very clear once the man sues them. Regarding what I expect to happen if I refuse to get up by a cop? I expect an argument, I expect to possibly be arrested, but what I don't expect is to be assaulted. We have police brutality laws in this country. I'm not sure how you think that works.

 

[kmoose]

Disagree.............First, rarely does anyone read the fine print on most anything except when signing something like mortgage papers. Second, you're missing the point. It was a United flight, United who sold tickets to their flight and it was United who got the authorities (airport police?) to remove the passenger. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet some v-Bucks United owns some liability in this.

I have never said the phrase "fine print" once, so I'm not sure why people keep referring back to that, as if I am using it as some kind of excuse. The airline has every legal right to bump you from a flight. It happens to people every single day. However, the airline cannot forcibly remove a passenger who refuses to get off of the plane. And I'm not missing the point, you are:

There are many different entities involved in a flight: The airline provides the plane, books the tickets, processes the check-in, etc. The airport provides the mechanism(s) for conveying bags from the ticket counter to what they call the makeup unit, which is where either the airline or a contractor will collect the bags for a flight, put them on a cart, or multiple carts, and take them to the airplane and load them. TSA provides the screening of the baggage for explosives, in almost all airports. The airport police department or security contractor will handle all physical altercations required in the airport. United(by the way, it wasn't even United, it was Republic Airlines operating a United flight) followed procedure that is used at virtually every airport in the country. If you have an unruly passenger, or a passenger who refuses to follow the flight crew's instructions; you don't touch them. You call the cops. Once the cops show up, it is out of your hands. Whatever follows, in terms of how the situation is handled, is on the cops. United doesn't have a representative standing there directing the cops, "Grab him!" "Now armbar him" "TASE him!' "A little more pressure on the clavicle. There ya go." As it turns out, because it was Republic airlines, a contract carrier for United, that operated the flight; United's corporate policies limited the amount of money that they could offer to induce people to give up their seat. I would bet that they are already in the process of reviewing those policies. But the bottom line is: The people on the ground did what they could to entice passengers to give up their seat. When they didn't get enough takers, they were perfectly within their legal rights to randomly select someone to bump from the flight. When that person refused to leave the aircraft, they followed the well-established protocol, nationwide, of calling the LEOs to remove the person. Again, this is similar to you calling 911 to get the cops to break up a fight next door, then the cops showing up and shooting one of the combatants, and people blaming you for the guy getting shot. You didn't ask the cops to come shoot anyone, and you did what was reasonable, in asking for the appropriate authorities to come resolve the issue. If those authorities over-react, that's on them; not you.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

How is this on the customer? Why? The airline screwed up. Not him. They asked for volunteers. He didnt volunteer.

Like I said it sucks, but the airline has the right to do it and he made the situation worse. Didn't leave when the flight attendants asked him to and refused to leave when the cops told him to.

Not like the guy has a history of questionable decision making or anything right?

 

[Blaise]

Like I said it sucks, but the airline has the right to do it and he made the situation worse. Didn't leave when the flight attendants asked him to and refused to leave when the cops told him to.

Not like the guy has a history of questionable decision making or anything right?

I don't really agree with the last part, I don't think that has anything to do with them. I think the airlines were well within their right. They followed the correct steps. The Airport security used aggressive force and they should be punished

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I would say there is a lot you can do outside of smashing a dudes face into the seat and dragging his unconscious body down the aisle in front of women and children. There were three of them, maybe grab him by the arms, handcuff him, whatever.



The security guards did not have the right to assault him. You will see that very clear once the man sues them. Regarding what I expect to happen if I refuse to get up by a cop? I expect an argument, I expect to possibly be arrested, but what I don't expect is to be assaulted. We have police brutality laws in this country. I'm not sure how you think that works.

No one deserves a beatdown in that situation, but when cops give you an order and you refuse to comply and have to remove you with force, you set yourself up for trouble.

Dude would have been much smarter (even for a physician) to get off the plane, be pissed off about it (we all would), and fight the battle with United afterwards.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Cackalacky]

Like I said it sucks, but the airline has the right to do it and he made the situation worse. Didn't leave when the flight attendants asked him to and refused to leave when the cops told him to.

They also had the ability to not overbook and to allow all those people to board in the first place and to figure out another way to get their dead leggers to Louisville... but lets blame the customer. Seems legit.

Not like the guy has a history of questionable decision making or anything right?

Victim blaming pure and simple here. It has nothing to do with him being randomly chosen to "volunteer" his seat. This is a bullshit statement.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Irish#1]

I have never said the phrase "fine print" once, so I'm not sure why people keep referring back to that, as if I am using it as some kind of excuse. The airline has every legal right to bump you from a flight. It happens to people every single day. However, the airline cannot forcibly remove a passenger who refuses to get off of the plane. And I'm not missing the point, you are:

There are many different entities involved in a flight: The airline provides the plane, books the tickets, processes the check-in, etc. The airport provides the mechanism(s) for conveying bags from the ticket counter to what they call the makeup unit, which is where either the airline or a contractor will collect the bags for a flight, put them on a cart, or multiple carts, and take them to the airplane and load them. TSA provides the screening of the baggage for explosives, in almost all airports. The airport police department or security contractor will handle all physical altercations required in the airport. United(by the way, it wasn't even United, it was Republic Airlines operating a United flight) followed procedure that is used at virtually every airport in the country. If you have an unruly passenger, or a passenger who refuses to follow the flight crew's instructions; you don't touch them. You call the cops. Once the cops show up, it is out of your hands. Whatever follows, in terms of how the situation is handled, is on the cops. United doesn't have a representative standing there directing the cops, "Grab him!" "Now armbar him" "TASE him!' "A little more pressure on the clavicle. There ya go." As it turns out, because it was Republic airlines, a contract carrier for United, that operated the flight; United's corporate policies limited the amount of money that they could offer to induce people to give up their seat. I would bet that they are already in the process of reviewing those policies. But the bottom line is: The people on the ground did what they could to entice passengers to give up their seat. When they didn't get enough takers, they were perfectly within their legal rights to randomly select someone to bump from the flight. When that person refused to leave the aircraft, they followed the well-established protocol, nationwide, of calling the LEOs to remove the person. Again, this is similar to you calling 911 to get the cops to break up a fight next door, then the cops showing up and shooting one of the combatants, and people blaming you for the guy getting shot. You didn't ask the cops to come shoot anyone, and you did what was reasonable, in asking for the appropriate authorities to come resolve the issue. If those authorities over-react, that's on them; not you.

If you read my posts, you'll see I've posted several times that an airlines can refuse to board you or remove you at anytime, no reason even needs to be given.

I didn't miss any point. You stated that the airline is not at fault for the actions of the police. I disgree and I think you'll see United be held accountable. This is not similar to anyone calling 911. There is a service being offered for a price and a customer purchasing that service, expecting to receive that service for the money they paid. Therein lies United culpability along with the police. Don't know what else to say if you can't see the distinction. Maybe one of our legal beagles can chime in on United's place.

 

[arahop]

Shouldn't the lesson be.....know what you agree to? Aren't your rights limited by that contract? I agree the physical contact was way over the top.

You sound like a guy who would make a good PR guy. Weaseling out on technicalities. Either that or you have some ties to United??

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

They also had the ability to not overbook and to allow all those people to board in the first place and to figure out another way to get their dead leggers to Louisville... but lets blame the customer. Seems legit.



Victim blaming pure and simple here. It has nothing to do with him being randomly chosen to "volunteer" his seat. This is a bullshit statement.

You're completely ignoring the guy's poor decision making (and he has a clear history of it) and painting him as a victim for refusing to obey law enforcement orders.

The first thing I said here was the situation is shitty and anyone would be upset, but any level headed adult would've handled it much better than this guy.

 

[Cackalacky]

You're completely ignoring the guy's poor decision making (and he has a clear history of it) and painting him as a victim for refusing to obey law enforcement orders.

The first thing I said here was the situation is shitty and anyone would be upset, but any level headed adult would've handled it much better than this guy.

I am not ignoring anything. It has fuck all to do with that situation. The airline screwed up Not him. Victim Blaming.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You sound like a guy who would make a good PR guy. Weaseling out on technicalities. Either that or you have some ties to United??

Nah.....I just get frustrated in situations where ignorance is a defense.

Look, there is no way the airline should have let it progress to the point that it did and the authorities were over the top in their aggression. There is much to learn from the situation for all parties involved.

What bothers me is that many people seem appalled that any airline could involuntarily revoke a ticket. While exceedingly rare, it does happen -- and the person does receive compensation -- and it's covered in the contract everyone agrees to when they initially purchase the ticket. But if that bothers a consumer, the consumer should understand what he/she is agreeing to. Jamie Dimon made this point quite well recently.

 

[Wild Bill]

Nah.....I just get frustrated in situations where ignorance is a defense.

Look, there is no way the airline should have let it progress to the point that it did and the authorities were over the top in their aggression. There is much to learn from the situation for all parties involved.

What bothers me is that many people seem appalled that any airline could involuntarily revoke a ticket. While exceedingly rare, it does happen -- and the person does receive compensation -- and it's covered in the contract everyone agrees to when they initially purchase the ticket. But if that bothers a consumer, the consumer should understand what he/she is agreeing to. Jamie Dimon made this point quite well recently.

Just to add, overbooking flights isn't a policy exclusive to United. To my knowledge, all airlines, with the exception of Jetblue, overbook their flights.

 

[kmoose]

If you read my posts, you'll see I've posted several times that an airlines can refuse to board you or remove you at anytime, no reason even needs to be given.

If you believe this to be true, then none of THIS matters:

There is a service being offered for a price and a customer purchasing that service, expecting to receive that service for the money they paid. Therein lies United culpability along with the police. Don't know what else to say if you can't see the distinction. Maybe one of our legal beagles can chime in on United's place.

If the airlines can remove you at any time, without a reason, then there is really no obligation to provide the service that was paid for.

But here's the thing:

I'm only saying that United should not be responsible for the manner in which the guy was removed from the plane. Of course they are responsible for his removal. But his removal is not an issue.......... as you said, they can remove you from the plane at any time. What's an issue is the level of force used to remove the guy. If the cops had walked up to him and said, "Excuse me, Sir, but you need to leave the aircraft.", then gently held his elbow as he exited the aircraft, then no one would be talking about this. Instead, they dragged him out. That's not United's fault.

 

[NDohio]

If the captain would have just gotten on the speaker and said "we will not be pulling away from the gate until the passenger in seat C23 leaves the plane", the authorities wouldn't have needed to be called. The passengers would have taken care of it themselves.

 

[Irish#1]

If you believe this to be true, then none of THIS matters:



If the airlines can remove you at any time, without a reason, then there is really no obligation to provide the service that was paid for.

But here's the thing:

I'm only saying that United should not be responsible for the manner in which the guy was removed from the plane. Of course they are responsible for his removal. But his removal is not an issue.......... as you said, they can remove you from the plane at any time. What's an issue is the level of force used to remove the guy. If the cops had walked up to him and said, "Excuse me, Sir, but you need to leave the aircraft.", then gently held his elbow as he exited the aircraft, then no one would be talking about this. Instead, they dragged him out. That's not United's fault.

I know it to be true. I worked for ATA back in 94-95 and technically you are correct, "then none of this matters". Level of force is the issue, but here's where we probably disagree. They couldn't get volunteers, so they randomly volunteered four people. Three begrudgingly got off. The fourth refused. Once it became apparent that this guy didn't want to budge, United should have randomly picked another passenger who wouldn't be so argumentative.

One could argue that United used poor judgement in 1) Not finding other transportation for their employees this creating this situation and 2) In deciding to have the authorities remove the guy instead of finding another person to inconvenience.

 

[Irish#1]

Nah.....I just get frustrated in situations where ignorance is a defense.

Look, there is no way the airline should have let it progress to the point that it did and the authorities were over the top in their aggression. There is much to learn from the situation for all parties involved.

What bothers me is that many people seem appalled that any airline could involuntarily revoke a ticket. While exceedingly rare, it does happen -- and the person does receive compensation -- and it's covered in the contract everyone agrees to when they initially purchase the ticket. But if that bothers a consumer, the consumer should understand what he/she is agreeing to. Jamie Dimon made this point quite well recently.

Who reads this stuff? If you do, I'm willing to bet you're in a small minority. Like I posted before, unless it's a deed or mortgage or something that isn't something you deal with on a regular basis no one is reading any contract or fine print on a something like an airline ticket. Half of it is probably written in a legal manner where a lot of people wouldn't understand it in the first place.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Who reads this stuff? If you do, I'm willing to bet you're in a small minority. Like I posted before, unless it's a deed or mortgage or something that isn't something you deal with on a regular basis no one is reading any contract or fine print on a something like an airline ticket. Half of it is probably written in a legal manner where a lot of people wouldn't understand it in the first place.

So apathy and ignorance is a viable excuse if you have a problem with the t&c's?

 

[RDU Irish]

Who reads this stuff? If you do, I'm willing to bet you're in a small minority. Like I posted before, unless it's a deed or mortgage or something that isn't something you deal with on a regular basis no one is reading any contract or fine print on a something like an airline ticket. Half of it is probably written in a legal manner where a lot of people wouldn't understand it in the first place.

Unilateral contract - what choice do you have as a consumer?

Can't believe nobody is noting the $1350 limit on compensation imposed by the Feds. Who do you think lobbied to write all of those Federal laws surrounding air travel? Sure as hell wasn't consumers.

 

[Cackalacky]

So apathy and ignorance is a viable excuse if you have a problem with the t&c's?

There is fine print precisely because the public is apathetic. Its not intended to alert to customers to things that will be in their best interest. Its intent is to protect the company and justify behaviors of the company. If everyone read the fine print and acted according to their conscious enterprise and commerce would grind to a halt.

 

[Cackalacky]

Unilateral contract - what choice do you have as a consumer?

Can't believe nobody is noting the $1350 limit on compensation imposed by the Feds. Who do you think lobbied to write all of those Federal laws surrounding air travel? Sure as hell wasn't consumers.

With our current corporatism state.... consumers and workers have little to zero recourse in grievances with business or government. We are out and out getting screwed by both sides. Businesses are just at adept at infringing on the public's rights as the government is.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I am not ignoring anything. It has fuck all to do with that situation. The airline screwed up Not him. Victim Blaming.

lol

1) you're ignoring his refusal to comply with the flight attendants and the police. that

2) sure the airline made a mistake, but he is no victim. But victimhood is the new cool thing, so go for it.

 

[Irish Insanity]

lol

1) you're ignoring his refusal to comply with the flight attendants and the police. that

2) sure the airline made a mistake, but he is no victim. But victimhood is the new cool thing, so go for it.

Show me where he was provided a written copy of the policy and procedure. Until that happens he had every right to stay. Because until they provide that, they didn't have a right to ask him to leave.

 

[RDU Irish]

With our current corporatism state.... consumers and workers have little to zero recourse in grievances with business or government. We are out and out getting screwed by both sides. Businesses are just at adept at infringing on the public's rights as the government is.

Even you have to admit - if Trump seized this opportunity to remove comp caps for bumped passengers it would be a hyuge popularity boost.

Unless and until it potentially costs more to bump passengers, they will only be incentivized to do more of the same. If there is no limit on the price charged for a flight, why is there a cap on the compensation for being removed from a flight?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Show me where he was provided a written copy of the policy and procedure. Until that happens he had every right to stay. Because until they provide that, they didn't have a right to ask him to leave.

I wasn't there and I don't work for United, so I won't be providing you anything. If they didn't have the right to ask him to leave (they do), the doctor would have been smart enough to get up, leave, catch the next flight, then take it up in court. Also, if they didn't have the legal right to do it, ya really think the COPS would have gotten involved and removed him? No.

Instead he wanted to be a tough guy and was forcibly removed after refusing to comply. And now the social justice warriors on twitter are making him sound like the modern age Rosa Parks.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I wasn't there and I don't work for United, so I won't be providing you anything. If they didn't have the right to ask him to leave (they do), the doctor would have been smart enough to get up, leave, catch the next flight, then take it up in court. Also, if they didn't have the legal right to do it, ya really think the COPS would have gotten involved and removed him? No.

Instead he wanted to be a tough guy and was forcibly removed after refusing to comply. And now the social justice warriors on twitter are making him sound like the modern age Rosa Parks.

Going back to the start of the situation. They are required to provide him paperwork which they never did. Everything after that shouldn't have happened and is on them. Calling the authorities after ignoring your own protocol to clean up the situation you created by fucking up from the beginning is a bitch move. And they pulled it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Even you have to admit - if Trump seized this opportunity to remove comp caps for bumped passengers it would be a hyuge popularity boost.

Unless and until it potentially costs more to bump passengers, they will only be incentivized to do more of the same. If there is no limit on the price charged for a flight, why is there a cap on the compensation for being removed from a flight?

I dont know as it has never personally affected my life so I cant say either way becasue I dont know how much it impacts people who fly enough for it to matter.

I think we both know exactly why tickets can be charged any fee and the compensation is capped. It benefits the company and not the consumer.... shocking.

 

[Ndaccountant]

There is fine print precisely because the public is apathetic. Its not intended to alert to customers to things that will be in their best interest. Its intent is to protect the company and justify behaviors of the company. If everyone read the fine print and acted according to their conscious enterprise and commerce would grind to a halt.

They do it to protect themselves and it's risk mitigation. All of that fine print exists b/c someone, at some point, sued somebody. The litigious society that we are dictates they do this. The specificity, language and overall "readability" also goes hand in hand with regulatory issues.

Frankly, if people have issues with "fine print", stop using the products they are associated with. Peope don't need credit cards to survive. People don't need Uber to wake up tomorrow morning and certainly aren't owed air travel by United or anyone else.

 

[Cackalacky]

They do it to protect themselves and it's risk mitigation. All of that fine print exists b/c someone, at some point, sued somebody. The litigious society that we are dictates they do this. The specificity, language and overall "readability" also goes hand in hand with regulatory issues.

Yes....I said this. It protects the company not the customers. Regulations are always a result of a company not doing something right that hurts an employee or customer. LOL at "readability".

Frankly, if people have issues with "fine print", stop using the products they are associated with. Peope don't need credit cards to survive. People don't need Uber to wake up tomorrow morning and certainly aren't owed air travel by United or anyone else.

I love this attitude.... it is quite funny. I said earlier that if everyone acted according to their conscious while reading fine print that commerce would come to a halt. Becasue consumers use a product doesnt mean the tacitly accept the entirety of a companies overriding business principles. We all make sacrifices for work (especially) and family in order to live in this modern technologically driven world. Its a sort of social contract if you get my drift, however it seems that consumers lose out to both the government and corporations when things come whose rights matter more.