What should be the outcome of the Passenger being forcibly removed from UAL

[Bodi]

Section 21 lists 19 specific reasons to remove the person. Which did he violate?

There was no confrontation. He asserted his right under the contract to remain in the seat he paid for. The police are in no position whatsoever to judge who is right or wrong. They had no business being called. UAL essentially used them as taxpayer funded muscle.

The thing to do is tell the cop\airline to show you the specific rule you are breaking.

 

[mbig]

If legitimate Airline personnel and Police asked me to get up, I would, even if I felt I was right.
This Squealing Pig didn't.

If a cop asks you to 'pull over', and you don't and you hit the gas instead, or..
don't roll down your window... or get out... even with the engine off.. because you felt you didn't do anything wrong...
Good Luck.

Cops and legitimate Airline personnel have the authority in the field.
If they're later found to be wrong in using that authority IN COURT, they pay.
But in the meantime, you get your ass up when asked.

 

[Gaius46]

If legitimate Airline personnel and Police asked me to get up, I would, even if I felt I was right.
This Squealing Pig didn't.

If a cop asks you to 'pull over', and you don't and you hit the gas instead, or..
don't roll down your window... or get out... even with the engine off.. because you felt you didn't do anything wrong...
Good Luck.

Cops and legitimate Airline personnel have the authority in the field.
If they're later found to be wrong in using that authority IN COURT, they pay.
But in the meantime, you get your ass up when asked.

With respect to safety of flight issues I agree. I expect my passengers to listen and obey me when what I'm saying is meant to keep them alive.

This is not a safety of flight issue. This is a contract issue. This is not an LEO who is enforcing our laws. It is a contract issue and the man was completely within his rights to stay in his seat because there is nothing in the contract that I can see that gave United the right to remove him.

Frankly I would have gotten up as well unless they were separating me from someone in my care. But quite honestly the airline had no authority to remove him.

 

[mbig]

With respect to safety of flight issues I agree. I expect my passengers to listen and obey me when what I'm saying is meant to keep them alive.

This is not a safety of flight issue. This is a contract issue. This is not an LEO who is enforcing our laws. It is a contract issue and the man was completely within his rights to stay in his seat because there is nothing in the contract that I can see that gave United the right to remove him.

Frankly I would have gotten up as well unless they were separating me from someone in my care. But quite honestly the airline had no authority to remove him.

Again, "contracts" too are for Courts.
In the field, the above 2 authorities rule.

Of course, this guy will win a large settlement just to stop the PR, but I wish it could be adjudicated til the end.

 

[Gaius46]

Again, "contracts" too are for Courts.
In the field, the above 2 authorities rule.

Of course, this guy will win a large settlement just to stop the PR, but I wish it could be adjudicated til the end.

You're making an unwarranted assumption. The flight crew has no authority under the FARs to remove a passenger unless they represent a flight safety risk or are in breach of the contract of carriage. The flight crew's authority is not unlimited.

That said it remains a contract issue and UAL had no business involving LE in what is a private dispute.

 

[mbig]

You're making an unwarranted assumption. The flight crew has no authority under the FARs to remove a passenger unless they represent a flight safety risk or are in breach of the contract of carriage. The flight crew's authority is not unlimited.
That said it remains a contract issue and UAL had no business involving LE in what is a private dispute.

The Captain/Authorized Crew can remove someone for any reason. I can think of other good ones besides 'safety'. Perhaps even if a crew needs to be moved to save the inconvenience/"safety" of hundreds/thousands vs one.
Regardless of that issue, the Police can.
He must get up.

You have ignored that "contracts"/contract law is for the Courts. In the field, even if wrong, legitimate authority rules.
No further answer to the Same bogus nonsense will be forthcoming.

 

[molten_dragon]

UAL's chairman stated yesterday or the day before that UAL will no longer call the police to remove passengers in similar circumstances. That would seem to confirm that UAL did call the police and not their own security people.

Fair enough. Doesn't really change things any. From the video I saw he was not being aggressive or violent with them, there was no cause to drag him out of his seat so violently.

 

[jdog21]

Section 21 lists 19 specific reasons to remove the person. Which did he violate?

There was no confrontation. He asserted his right under the contract to remain in the seat he paid for. The police are in no position whatsoever to judge who is right or wrong. They had no business being called. UAL essentially used them as taxpayer funded muscle.

Once the random selection of seats to be removed was anounced, thats the capitans orders for those idividuals to leave the plane. This person has no more rights to remain in their seat per the contract. Once the idividual dedcided to not comply witht he capitans orders the police were called and were legally to escort him out of the plane. When a police officer is escorting you out of a business if you do not go quitely with them then they have to use force to remove you. Which is what happened
To answer your question under section 21 he violated the not complying with the capitans orders which inturns causes a safety issue. Whether or not you think its a safety issue can not be questioned.

 

[Gaius46]

Once the random selection of seats to be removed was anounced, thats the capitans orders for those idividuals to leave the plane. This person has no more rights to remain in their seat per the contract. Once the idividual dedcided to not comply witht he capitans orders the police were called and were legally to escort him out of the plane. When a police officer is escorting you out of a business if you do not go quitely with them then they have to use force to remove you. Which is what happened
To answer your question under section 21 he violated the not complying with the capitans orders which inturns causes a safety issue. Whether or not you think its a safety issue can not be questioned.

There is no provision in section 21 about disobeying the captains orders. There is 21.H which speaks to interfering with the flight crew. You are under federal supposed to comply with flight crew directives but that is limited to the conduct of flight and does not extend to removing a passenger who is in compliance with the contract of carriage. United isn't even making this argument because it's a non-starter.

And just to be clear the selection of passengers to be removed was not done by the flight crew. It was done by the gate agents.

 

[trouble13]

My experiences have been with delta but i use to fly every week twice a week for a little over two years. As a frequent flyer i can tell you delta customer service is horrible and falls right in line with this story.

More than once have i seen people bumped because of overbooking and many times i have missed commectimg flights due to airline problems. They offer very little compemsation for the inconveniences they create.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[jdog21]

There is no provision in section 21 about disobeying the captains orders. There is 21.H which speaks to interfering with the flight crew. You are under federal supposed to comply with flight crew directives but that is limited to the conduct of flight and does not extend to removing a passenger who is in compliance with the contract of carriage. United isn't even making this argument because it's a non-starter.

And just to be clear the selection of passengers to be removed was not done by the flight crew. It was done by the gate agents.

To be clear Section 21 of the contract carriage is the refusal to transport section. Sub section H is the clause for safety and haveing an overbook flight is a safety concerns. Any gate agent does not act alone they are to report to the capitan and once boarding the plane they become under neath his rule and his authority. If the capitan does not wish to kick any one off he can make that ruling and kick the gate agent off. Its his plane

 

[Gaius46]

To be clear Section 21 of the contract carriage is the refusal to transport section. Sub section H is the clause for safety and haveing an overbook flight is a safety concerns. Any gate agent does not act alone they are to report to the capitan and once boarding the plane they become under neath his rule and his authority. If the capitan does not wish to kick any one off he can make that ruling and kick the gate agent off. Its his plane

Do you work for an airline? Do you have inside knowledge as to how a gate agent's job is performed? If you do I will accept your answer but frankly the captain is far too busy getting clearances, checking weather, getting paperwork done, getting fuel and weight information etc etc to worry about who's getting what seat.



An overbooked flight is not a safety of flight concern unless two people are actually occupying the seat at the same time.

 

[jdog21]

Do you work for an airline? Do you have inside knowledge as to how a gate agent's job is performed? If you do I will accept your answer but frankly the captain is far too busy getting clearances, checking weather, getting paperwork done, getting fuel and weight information etc etc to worry about who's getting what seat.



An overbooked flight is not a safety of flight concern unless two people are actually occupying the seat at the same time.

Once it was decided that the employees were to board this sold out flight you have a situtation were there are 4 people occupy the same seats. There for it becomes a safety issue, to many people on the plane and not enough seats.
I do have knowledge of the authority a capitan has for his plane, i worked a few years as a turbine engine mechanic for delta at a airport. Think of it as he is the supreme ruler of his little plane as long as he is in it.

 

[Gaius46]

Once it was decided that the employees were to board this sold out flight you have a situtation were there are 4 people occupy the same seats. There for it becomes a safety issue, to many people on the plane and not enough seats.
I do have knowledge of the authority a capitan has for his plane, i worked a few years as a turbine engine mechanic for delta at a airport. Think of it as he is the supreme ruler of his little plane as long as he is in it.

I have to disagree. I'm a pilot - though not on an air carrier - and a flight instructor who's spent many years teaching regs in ground school. The captain is not omnipotent. He is - as per the regs - the final authority as to the safe operation of the aircraft and he is authorized to deviate from any regulation to insure the safety of his flight. (reference FAR 91.3)


That regulation does not give the captain authority to do anything he pleases. It does not give him the authority to remove a passenger who does not represent in his opinion a flight risk. 4 people are not in the seat. United wanted to put someone else in it - different animal altogether. There is absolutely no flight risk at all.

The doctor complied with the carriage of contract. United didn't.

 

[jdog21]

I have to disagree. I'm a pilot - though not on an air carrier - and a flight instructor who's spent many years teaching regs in ground school. The captain is not omnipotent. He is - as per the regs - the final authority as to the safe operation of the aircraft and he is authorized to deviate from any regulation to insure the safety of his flight. (reference FAR 91.3)


That regulation does not give the captain authority to do anything he pleases. It does not give him the authority to remove a passenger who does not represent in his opinion a flight risk. 4 people are not in the seat. United wanted to put someone else in it - different animal altogether. There is absolutely no flight risk at all.

The doctor complied with the carriage of contract. United didn't.

My expression that a capitan is omnipotent should not be misguided. A capitan has a lot of different regs and different people who give him orders. If a air traffic controller tells a capitan to change speeds, altitude, or trojectory. A capitan is supposed to comply but he feels he can not meet those demands he does what he feel is the best course of action and relays that to the air traffic controller and they come up with a new plan. So his authority is all powerful but if he violates a regulation he will be held accountable by being fired or some instances even jailed.
Once people bored the plane he is then the acting commander and the flight crew and gate agent are required to do what he says and if they feel he is wrong they can file a complaint but they can not over rule his command. The regulations and policies in place to remove people from an over book flight and the comon practices were all followed. A capitan could step in a over ride anything the gate agents were doing but that could put his job or standing with the company in jepordy if he isnt completly justifiable in his actions so decided to let them continue.

 

[zimmer]

Most of you know about the incident where a doctor was dragged off a United Airline flight after the airline overbooked the flight and demanded he leave the flight.

The airline boarded him... then sought to remove him. Whoops!!!

The contract doesn't allow for that, unless the circumstances are grave. They weren't. Whoops!!!

He will get a very nice, 7-figure retirement package.

 

[The Mark]

One thing I learned from this - if I ever get asked to leave a flight, demand cash payment for doing so.

 

[Grand Mal]

One thing I learned from this - if I ever get asked to leave a flight, demand cash payment for doing so.

Much cash. Like a reverse auction- start the bidding at, say, $10,000 and bid down until the bid gets to the lowest acceptable number.

 

[The Mark]

Much cash. Like a reverse auction- start the bidding at, say, $10,000 and bid down until the bid gets to the lowest acceptable number.

One thing is for sure, I'm not leaving that flight without 2x my ticket cost in cash, minimum

 

[chromium]

I think what the airline did was criminal and the CEO and board members should be arrested for that policy. Someone takes their 1 week vacation for the year, drives to an airport and gets treated like that

Given that the airlines already changed their policy of overbooking with no warning, in response to international condemnation, i don't see how he doesn't prevail in any lawsuit. What other industry gets to treat their customers this way?

I decided long ago i wouldn't fly again because i don't want to be treated as a terrorist in the waiting by professional gropers, i will not surrender my rights to them, and now after seeing this i'm more convinced than ever i made the right choice

 

[chromium]

I don't see where the airline did anything wrong, somebody had to be removed, he got selected, refused, the police get involved, and he resists the cops.

although I don't know the state of regulation around this kind of thing, but to me it should be an issue of refusing to obey an order to depart someone's private property and being detained for the trespass.

good god, how would you like for this to happen for you with no warning when you're supposed to be going on vacation? The airline did nothing wrong? It overbooked the flight for starters! The entire world is incensed at how he was treated, if you haven't been paying attention

 

[Neomalthusian]

Having spent no more than 30 seconds reading/hearing about this story, I can say I have it all figured out. Both should settle with the passenger. The amount of the settlement should be the cost of his travel plus the cost of all medical and dental bills from injuries sustained, times two or three for the emotional disruption on top of that. So what would that come to, I dunno, $10,000 to $20,000 or so. Somewhere in that ballpark is probably okay.

 

[chromium]

Not a damn thing. The airline is a private business. They have no obligation to do business with him and he has no right to a flight without their consent. So long as his money was refunded, he has no case.

Yeah, watch how quickly they lose customers, since no one wants to be treated that way after they planned months in advance to travel

 

[Cephus]

Yeah, watch how quickly they lose customers, since no one wants to be treated that way after they planned months in advance to travel

And that's fine. Actions have consequences and they should suffer the consequences of their actions. I've already said as much. But they still have no obligation to do business with him, so long as they are not refusing on a strict scrutiny basis. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences to their refusal, but people are acting like this guy had a constitutional right to sit on their plane.

 

[chromium]

And that's fine. Actions have consequences and they should suffer the consequences of their actions. I've already said as much. But they still have no obligation to do business with him, so long as they are not refusing on a strict scrutiny basis. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences to their refusal, but people are acting like this guy had a constitutional right to sit on their plane.

They already did business when they sold him a ticket to board a plane at a specific time. What they're doing is trying to renege on that at the last minute and not to mention the brutal way they went about it, and the world's disgust tells me that overbooking should be illegal period