10 ms·
Someone on a different message board put this situation very well: By the letter of the law, United was correct - morally, they were not. Their 'contract of car
by manacit 9y ago
Someone on a different message board put this situation very well: By the letter of the law, United was correct - morally, they were not. Their 'contract of carriage' allows them to IDB (Involuntary Deny Boarding) to passengers due to overselling, and bump people off at-will. Depending on how delayed the passenger would be to their final destination, they would owe compensation (up to a max of $1350) for the trouble.
Unfortunately, the way this played out was pretty terrible. My hope would be that events like this could move United (and other airlines) to having more transparent overbooking policies and compensating people fairly, but that's not likely.
- whitepoplar 9y agoThe problem is that what's legal and what's ethical have diverged into two wholly different things. "The law" is now often used to aid in unethical activity, not to prevent it.
- striking 9y agoYou mean to say it hasn't always been that way?
- treehau5 9y agoThe other problem is what society views as ethical or moral is now subjective to each on a variety of different factors in this post post-modern society. There was once puritanical values, however despised they are by certain factions, which unified the "ethos" of the nation on what is and is not ethical. The civil rights movement came along and augmented that ethos for the better. Now we have groups who place abandoning a cat on the same level as abandoning a child, as an example. It's going to be very difficult on agreeing what is "ethical" when in the "me" society it translates to "what is ethical for me, right now, based on my current views of some form of science/philosophy/religion/spirituality/etc and what happened to me personally when I was growing up"
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ianai 9y agoEthics have always started and ended at the individual level. Even in societies dominated by communal thinking/living.
- mtgx 9y agoAirlines shouldn't be allowed to overbook. Causing people to miss their flights just because the company wanted to ensure 100% profitability per flight is unacceptable, and it shouldn't be legal (the overbooking, not the throwing off a plane for whatever other serious reason per se).
- acchow 9y agoThey'd have probably staying profitable if they couldn't overbook. Overbook it, sure, but offer escalating incentives to get people to voluntarily disembark. Physical removal is ridiculous and should be removed from the carrier's legal rights.
- mtgx 9y agoPutting profits ahead of anything else is what causes so much problems in the U.S. these days. If only one company decided to overbook, then sure, I agree with you. But if it were a law, and every airline was forced not to overbook, then it simply means the ticket prices would be a little higher. And if because of those slightly higher ticket prices, the airline might have to retire a plane or two, then so be it, but no airline would go bankrupt because of it. We have all sorts of laws that protect consumers and employees that "hurt" the absolute maximization of profit. This wouldn't be any different. When it's a law, it just means everyone plays at a higher standard and prices are a little higher than they would be without those protections. Also, Canada is likely going to pass such a law soon: http://globalnews.ca/news/3370381/canada-overbooked-flights-law/ http://globalnews.ca/news/3370381/canada-overbooked-flights-...
- inimino 9y ago
- joelrunyon 9y agoLegally - is this considered assault?
- taf2 9y agoOr trespassing? Law is fun right?
- namlem 9y agoNo, but it might be grounds for a suit against the police.
- jessaustin 9y agoThe passenger was attacked by a random big dude in blue jeans. Sure there were uniforms looking on with approval, but this guy looked like a baggage handler not police?
- strictnein 9y agoSky marshal? Doubt some random just decided to drag someone off a plane.
- jessaustin 9y agoWatch the video. The guy is big, but he's not acting like police, and he doesn't have any sort of uniform. The two useless cops are just looking on like useless cops do.
- strictnein 9y agoI watched the video. Sky marshals purposefully wear normal clothes, so they blend in with the rest of the passengers on the flight. Having them wear uniforms would kind of defeat the purpose. The cops are likely waiting until the passenger is off the plane to take him into custody.
- tomp 9y ago> Involuntary Deny Boarding I don't have the contract at hand, but by the above wording, the man was already boarded...
- MattSteelblade 9y agoFrom my understanding, you're correct. Deny Boarding can be avoided by checking in early. These people had boarded and the plane was full before the mistake was realized. EDIT: Still unsure as to the legality of this. IDB is well established, but the fact that everyone has boarded is a different matter. Reading the contract of carriage did not bring any more light to this point. And let's be clear, denying someone and removing someone are very different. At least one source says it does matter (unknown reputability) "This is important because involuntary denied boarding only applies when passengers have been fully checked in (including baggage) and are at the gate at a specified time, typically 30 minutes before scheduled departure." https://thepointsguy.com/2014/12/what-to-do-if-your-flight-is-oversold/ https://thepointsguy.com/2014/12/what-to-do-if-your-flight-i...
- ianai 9y agoToo bad, I say. If we're going by the exact letter of the law on what is/isn't acceptable then the mistake started and ended on the airline side.
- manacit 9y agoI believe your understanding is incorrect - someone can be denied boarding regardless of when they have checked into the flight. If there are 100 seats, they may sell 105 tickets and permit 105 people to check in - if they cannot find 5 volunteers they will have to IDB 5 passengers. While the rules aren't printed very well (I just scanned United's Contract of Carriage, and the Federal Code), I believe it counts as an IDB even if you are physically on the airplane.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
- jfk13 9y ago> Their 'contract of carriage' allows them to IDB (Involuntary Deny Boarding) to passengers due to overselling, and bump people off at-will. But my understanding from the article is that the problem here was not overselling; they decided to give priority to moving their employees around over providing the contracted service to ticketed passengers. It's hard to see how that's justifiable even by the letter of the law.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoIf there's equipment waiting in Louisville, and another entire plane isn't going anywhere without them, that's how its justifiable. IDB means you can (legally) be physically removed from a flight. With that said, don't drag people off your flights. No matter what it costs you to get staff where they need to be when you make this mistake, it'll be cheaper than the negative publicity of a physical altercation removing a passenger (even if you need to retask a commuter aircraft just to relocate the crew, or ask another carrier to get them there).
- zeveb 9y ago> With that said, don't drag people off your flights. No matter what it costs you to get staff where they need to be when you make this mistake, it'll be cheaper than the negative publicity of a physical altercation removing a passenger (even if you need to retask a commuter aircraft just to relocate the crew, or ask another carrier to get them there). Of course, that just gives a hecker's veto to anyone insubordinate enough to refuse to leave. What they probably should have done was select another passenger, and have police waiting for the recalcitrant passenger at the destination airport: that would satisfy the need to get personnel to their destination and ensure punishment for someone violating his contract and wouldn't cause a scene.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- SamBam 9y agoNo, what they should have done is exactly what other airlines do when they are overbooked: keep raising the voucher amount until someone volunteers to get off. And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements. The moment you've escalated to "we've selected people at random, and we are willing to eject people by violence or arrest them on the other end" you've already lost.
- hellopat 9y agoDoes this mean they can still bump people off the flight at-will even though he already boarded the flight?
- xapata 9y agoWhoever decided to force the guy off the plane is an idiot. They could have simply raised the comp for volunteering slowly until someone took the money.
- mabbo 9y agoBut that costs money immediately. Forcing someone off the plane and causing a huge HR mess only costs money long-term, and it doesn't come out of my budget, so why should I care?
- xapata 9y agoGood point. Whoever set the incentives badly and set some arbitrary cap at $1350 should be fired.
- cmurf 9y agoThat would be a regulator or Congress. The airline would set no cap, if they could get away with macing you to get you off the airplane, they would. "Next time, just get off the plane when we ask the first time." When a family member, or associate of Congress gets hit with this experience, then maybe the fines get adjusted accordingly. Anyway, hopefully the guy gets a good lawyer.
- justin66 9y ago> That would be a regulator or Congress. No, it's a United policy: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... The airline hasn't commented yet on why they didn't go above 800, when they could go to 1350.
- cmurf 9y agoMaybe I'm thinking of baggage. I know there's a limit on liability applied by law somewhere.
- draw_down 9y agoThen the law is wrong.
- ErikAugust 9y agoPretty sure assault and battery is not legal.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoWell if the contract and the law says they can involuntarily remove passengers from the plane, then it is necessarily legally permissable for United to assault/battery their passengers. Whether or not that is morally the right thing to do, or whether that is a wise business move in this case is a separate question (probably answer is no). Hypothetically they could legally shoot their customers if battery was not enough force if the contract stipulates so.
- jessaustin 9y agoIllegal things don't become legal just because they're in a contract. Otherwise, people who can't pay credit card debt would be under the whip in work camps.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tim333 9y agoTechnically perhaps but they never do anything if it's done by the police.
- mnglkhn2 9y agoFor some reason it looks a little bit off considering that he was already boarded and in his seat. I can understand the reasoning if it is executed at gate or check-in. It happened to me, and while frustrating, you comply. But if you have to take people off the aircraft, that looks like a last minute decision made by the airline to move staff. The best approach would have been to up the reward/incentive.
- mrec 9y agoBut if it was a last-minute thing, what happens to checked baggage, which may have already been loaded onto the plane by that point? Does this imply you're much more likely to get picked for last-minute eviction if you didn't check anything in?
- tedmiston 9y agoNo, they can re-route the baggage for you if you're going on another flight. If you're not flying they remove it (which can significantly delay takeoff causing a fine to the airline if their stats drop outside of standards). I've flown on budget flights before that have a similar case where your checked lugagage is not necessarily on your flight to the destination but could be on a later one. Even much later. Very few guarantees before they actually start paying out for lost or delayed baggage. They're also allowed to ship your baggage to you or hand deliver with a shipping courier.
- _red 9y agoA couple of points: 1. You are correct that is what they CoC states, however its not like this is really a free market (ie. the customer didn't really have a choice but to accept those terms). United, and all commercial airlines, effectively have a monopoly license. So, it wasn't really a free and open market that produced those CoC terms. 2. As sign of the "bad faith" of United's contract, the reverse situation is not permitted. That is, a customer who chooses not to fly at the last minute doesn't get to reschedule - and in many cases will simply forfeit his money. So, on one end of this contract a government monopoly can kick you off a flight via force based on whim (breaking the implied contract that they were going to service you), but on the other end the customer either has no other competitor choice nor has any recourse once they've handed over their money.
- scott_usa 9y agoWell said. I'd be curious to hear if there is a major airline that does not have the IDB policy.
- tedmiston 9y agoI would be extremely surprised as not having one is all downside to them.
- manacit 9y agoThere are some airlines that do not set out to oversell/overbook flights - JetBlue, for example. Even in a situation where a flight is only sold to capacity, there can be various reasons for people to be IDBed. Damaged seats, Equipment Changes (A321 -> A320 for example), etc. At some point, every US carrier has has or will have to IDB people, and they all have a policy that gives them as much leeway as possible under federal regulations to do so.
- jordanb 9y agoThink the solution is to outlaw IDB for overbooking. This is similar to letting airlines sit a plane on the tarmac for hours with all the passengers stewing inside. Once they had to start paying penalties they quit doing that. In this case, denying IDB would force the airlines to pay the passengers whatever it cost to get them to voluntary leave the plane. This constitutes a penalty for overbooking to the point where they have to refuse carriage, and also just compensation for those inconvenienced.