• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man dragged from plane for refusing to voluntarily give up his seat.

nota bene said:
An update: Although publicly apologizing for having to "re-accommodate" passengers, United CEO Munoz in an e-mail to employees "defended the crew's actions, calling the passenger 'disruptive and belligerent' and praising his staff for going 'above and beyond'."

United Airlines CEO pens email defending staff | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. If this CEO had admitted his employees were wrong, the only issue for the judge is how many numbers the verdict is
 
DashingAmerican said:
How hard is it to not overbook a flight?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of greed when they intentionally overbook. Decades ago, to cover the no shows, they simply sold standby tickets to people who did not already have an assigned seat. If someone did not show, you got a seat. if you did not get a seat, they would book you on a later flight.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't understand- the passenger appeared to be in compliance with the law when he boarded the craft and sat in his seat. The service is expected to be provided at that point.

Where's the fine print you're alleging but can't be bothered to find?



Getting this man home would not screw up 200 peoples travel plans.

If United wants to treat people like human garbage, they may as well sedate passengers and then toss them in the cargo hold.

That, or they can keep their customers by, you know, providing airline service.



Yes, yes they were. United engaged in poor planning. That is their fault. If they have to buy 4 AA tickets for their 4 United employees, they should do so. Better yet, they can find terms that their customers are actually willing to agree to rather than sending in thugs to beat them into submission and tossing them out of the airlock.
Click to expand...

Finally, something on which I can agree with absentglare.:agree
 
TurtleDude said:
nope, you book a seat with the expectation if you BUY the ticket -short of the flight NOT BEING ABLE to commence-you have a seat Its a contract. Screw United and I hope they get hammered in a law suit
Click to expand...

And the bad PR will be more expensive then the lawsuit in the long run.
 
Paperview said:
United Airlines shares took a one billion dollar hit today.


*ouch*
Click to expand...

But it recovered to close down at -1.6%

But now there's talk of boycotting so it could drop again tomorrow.
 
Inalisist said:
Ah well I didn't know that. Thank you! So they should book some people who they know will give up their seats, or at least try. I thought people would show up, err well now I think of it some layovers are late.

Can't they just say to the person who took their seat to get up and leave, since someone late arrive who booked before them? (Never mind about what I said before the edit)
Click to expand...

My flight today for example, it was almost full 2 hours ahead of the flight, I can pull up the loads....it went out with about 6-8 empty seats, and it got about 4 non-revs on it. Guy in front of me was on the 6:30 flight, he moved to the 3:40 flight I was on.
 
longview said:
It was not an overbooking, they had to move 4 crew members to Louisville.
Click to expand...

And they did not have the 4 seats needed. That is an overbooking--they had more pax than seats. This is semantics.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And they did not have the 4 seats needed. That is an overbooking--they had more pax than seats. This is semantics.
Click to expand...
The employees were not booked passengers!
The law is full of semantics, and they mean very real things.
 
longview said:
It was not an overbooking, they had to move 4 crew members to Louisville.
Click to expand...



you have x number of seats. you sell x number of seats.... you then say you need 4 of those seats for employees.... that is an overbooking.
 
longview said:
The employees were not booked passengers!
The law is full of semantics, and they mean very real things.
Click to expand...

They were booked passengers at the time of boarding.
 
Thoreau72 said:
They were booked passengers at the time of boarding.
Click to expand...
No they were not, if they had been, the rules in the contract of carriage would have been invoked,
and the passengers would have been "denied boarding" as spelled out in the contract of carriage.
Since the passengers had already boarded, the need for the extra seats arose, after the boarding event.
 
longview said:
No they were not, if they had been, the rules in the contract of carriage would have been invoked,
and the passengers would have been "denied boarding" as spelled out in the contract of carriage.
Since the passengers had already boarded, the need for the extra seats arose, after the boarding event.
Click to expand...

Have it your way. I'm way past the point of caring. I'm glad UAL has apologized, and there is no doubt they will settle out of court.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It's a matter of greed when they intentionally overbook. Decades ago, to cover the no shows, they simply sold standby tickets to people who did not already have an assigned seat. If someone did not show, you got a seat. if you did not get a seat, they would book you on a later flight.
Click to expand...

The airline industry as changed a lot. Decades ago, the industry was highly regulated and airlines had a higher assurance of profitability. De regulation has brought increased competition on all routes. Those who in the past would have bought stand by tickets now simply buy a ticket from any number of competitors.

The competitors have also driven the price of tickets way down- good for consumers. Reduced ticket prices have also contributed to the decision of some, many or nearly all airlines to over book. Eliminating the practice will drive up ticket prices for consumers.

But.... many consumers want premium services at non premium prices. This is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
It was not an overbooking, they had to move 4 crew members to Louisville.
Click to expand...

It may or may not have been an overbooking. That's not really relevant. Overbooking's are handled prior to persons having been seated. This guy was seated.

The problem was priorities. United decided it was more important to move some people at the expense of others already seated. Rather than pay the market price for the use of his seat, they chose force. The result was a loss of hundreds of millions in revenues and stock value. And a lawsuit which will keep this story in the news for a long time.

Tough shlt, United
 
Last edited:
Sounds exactly like all the school police vs unruly kids in the classroom debates.

The guy was not within his legal right to refuse. 46,000 people leave the plane when asked to each year for similar reasons. 3500 or so go involuntarily. This guy is the outlier, sorry.
This, he chose to protest the legality (by violating the law, as some protestors do, to make a point)
The cops were called in to deal with a person physically protesting (refusing to leave), and they dealt with him as cops do.

Same as when a school has to remove an unruly kid. They tell the kid to leave, they refuse. They tell them the cops will remove them, they refuse.
Cops arrive and say "lets' go", they refuse. Cops drag them out kicking and screaming.

Then it goes viral and mob mentality assumes there is no reason to treat someone like that, boo United? Absurd. The armchair citizens, handing out SWJustice from their keyboards, it's so millennial.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
nope, you book a seat with the expectation if you BUY the ticket -short of the flight NOT BEING ABLE to commence-you have a seat Its a contract. Screw United and I hope they get hammered in a law suit
Click to expand...
ObamacareFail said:
I disagree. if I buy a ticket for a specific flight, I expect to be a passenger on that flight. if they want to intentionally overbook, they can sell standby tickets at a reduced price.
Click to expand...


Your expectations may well not reflect the reality of the contracts.

Tickets come with written contracts that give the airline the broad ability to change the travel arrangements at their discretion. This ability is very broad even with out quibbling over the definition of "boarding" or whether or not the signed contract is linked to a treaty that gives the airline near total discretion.

In short, the only viable options for passengers seeking to fly are to use their economic freedoms to:

A. Ensure their expectations match the actual contract. Don't buy tickets (contracts) from airlines that refuse to offer the contract they expect.
B. Charter a private jet.
C. Establish a competing airline(s).
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
Rather than pay the market price for the use of his seat, they chose force.
Click to expand...

They offered more than they were required to by law. They were only required to offer 4 times the one way ticket price he paid. The guy paid less then $200.00 for this flight one way. That is most likely close to what he paid round trip. They were under no obligation to offer more and were well with their rights to ask that he be removed by the officer.
 
TurtleDude said:
anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. If this CEO had admitted his employees were wrong, the only issue for the judge is how many numbers the verdict is
Click to expand...

I'd bet there will be 7 numbers in the ruling. The first number not being a 1.

With any luck United will choose to fight it. Thus keeping the story in the news for months.
 
buck said:
They offered more than they were required to by law. They were only required to offer 4 times the one way ticket price he paid. The guy paid less then $200.00 for this flight one way. That is most likely close to what he paid round trip. They were under no obligation to offer more and were well with their rights to ask that he be removed by the officer.
Click to expand...

Nope and I have no doubt they are going to take a bath in court if they are stupid enough not to settle. once they seated the guy you deal with a concept called reliance and estoppel
 
jimbo said:
I'd bet there will be 7 numbers in the ruling. The first number not being a 1.

With any luck United will choose to fight it. Thus keeping the story in the news for months.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is going to be that simple. There are two different actors invovled United and the Chicago police authority. United is not responsible for the actions of the police authority. The police authority also has sovereign immunity if they choose to invoke it.

Sure, the initial ruling may involve tens of millions of dollars- maybe even hundreds of millions. These rulings, however, tend to get greatly reduced in appellate courts. I don't think the vast majority of the public is going to follow the story any longer than next week. This goes double for dry and boring appeals that take years.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
you have x number of seats. you sell x number of seats.... you then say you need 4 of those seats for employees.... that is an overbooking.
Click to expand...

This is strictly semantics, but no. You have x number of seats. You sell x + 4 number of seats hoping that 4 people miss their flight. That's overbooking. The goal being to fly with as much revenue as possible on board.

This incident was a question of priorities, not booking.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
you have x number of seats. you sell x number of seats.... you then say you need 4 of those seats for employees.... that is an overbooking.
Click to expand...

The employees hadn't booked seats, so it's not an overbooking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom