6 ms·

> I can't imagine that out of more than 100 people they wouldn't find at least 4 interested in waiting in the airport to travel 1st class. Apparently they did.

> I can't imagine that out of more than 100 people they wouldn't find at least 4 interested in waiting in the airport to travel 1st class. Apparently they did. The law is pretty clear on this. You can be refused a flight for this reason - United decided that they wanted the seat for their employee more than the passenger. Once the passenger starts resisting, he/she should get removed by any means necessary, up to and including force. When people are acting unreasonably they should be prepared for unpleasant outcomes.

dudul 10y ago
Did they actually offer that to the passengers? I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Some comments here talk about $800. I don't think that's equivalent to a 1st ticket, but I may be wrong. In any case, they may have the law, but I still think it was very poorly handled. I'm also curious to know what was their random process to select the 4 passengers.
- jwong_ 10y ago
  They said it was "the computer", but I think they just looked at the fare paid and picked the lowest ones.
dageshi 10y ago
I don't think your average person will view this as being "fair". Specifically already being on the plane and effectively being evicted from your seat for no fault of your own I would call "unreasonable". Public opinion I think will also be very "unreasonable" regarding United in these circumstances.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  The point is that it doesn't matter if it's "fair" or "unreasonable" in your eyes. It's lawful, and eventually you will be taken off the plane. The time to fight the battle is after you get off, not struggling against overwhelming odds and then getting charges piled on you.
  - dageshi 10y ago
    If he had done as you suggest, nothing would have happened, nobody would've noticed and he might have got $1000 in compensation if he was lucky. Instead, United look like a bunch of incompetent thugs and many of the people involved in this debacle will be worrying for their jobs, as they should. Laws/rules don't change if people don't make a fuss about them being wrong.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Right now he's looking at injuries and lack of a voucher/compensation, and possibly criminal charges. This situation is akin to getting kicked out of a store that you were asked to leave. Your rights and compensation are spelled out in the law dealing with situations like this. One person is not allowed to make these unilateral decisions because they feel as though the law is wrong in that time. Laws and rules don't change if you act like an entitled drama queen that tries to bring race into the situation
      - cmurf 10y ago
        You're invited to provide citations to the violated rules, regulations and laws. I don't see United's contract of carriage rule 21 or rule 25 applicable. The passenger was granted boarding, not denied. FAR 91.3(a) doesn't apply, this has nothing to do with the operation of the aircraft. And federal regulation preempt state and local law, but you're welcome to try and convince me. I see no contractual basis for involuntary removal after boarding is granted, other than being in breach of some other portion of the contract of carriage. The airline was basically in a position per their own contract, of auctioning off a seat on their own plane and they got pissy and called the police, which was improper, and then the police didn't bother to evaluate the appropriateness of removal. Trespass doesn't apply, the passenger was authorized. Rescinding that state requires a basis in the contract, or FAA regulations or other law and so far the people engaging in victim blaming are providing a lot of jabber and no convincing explanations.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I bet people continue shopping airline tickets on price and barely remember this in a week or two.

dudul 10y ago

Did they actually offer that to the passengers? I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Some comments here talk about $800. I don't think that's equivalent to a 1st ticket, but I may be wrong. In any case, they may have the law, but I still think it was very poorly handled. I'm also curious to know what was their random process to select the 4 passengers.

jwong_ 10y ago
They said it was "the computer", but I think they just looked at the fare paid and picked the lowest ones.

dageshi 10y ago

I don't think your average person will view this as being "fair". Specifically already being on the plane and effectively being evicted from your seat for no fault of your own I would call "unreasonable". Public opinion I think will also be very "unreasonable" regarding United in these circumstances.

jimmywanger 10y ago
The point is that it doesn't matter if it's "fair" or "unreasonable" in your eyes. It's lawful, and eventually you will be taken off the plane. The time to fight the battle is after you get off, not struggling against overwhelming odds and then getting charges piled on you.
- dageshi 10y ago
  If he had done as you suggest, nothing would have happened, nobody would've noticed and he might have got $1000 in compensation if he was lucky. Instead, United look like a bunch of incompetent thugs and many of the people involved in this debacle will be worrying for their jobs, as they should. Laws/rules don't change if people don't make a fuss about them being wrong.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Right now he's looking at injuries and lack of a voucher/compensation, and possibly criminal charges. This situation is akin to getting kicked out of a store that you were asked to leave. Your rights and compensation are spelled out in the law dealing with situations like this. One person is not allowed to make these unilateral decisions because they feel as though the law is wrong in that time. Laws and rules don't change if you act like an entitled drama queen that tries to bring race into the situation
    - cmurf 10y ago
      You're invited to provide citations to the violated rules, regulations and laws. I don't see United's contract of carriage rule 21 or rule 25 applicable. The passenger was granted boarding, not denied. FAR 91.3(a) doesn't apply, this has nothing to do with the operation of the aircraft. And federal regulation preempt state and local law, but you're welcome to try and convince me. I see no contractual basis for involuntary removal after boarding is granted, other than being in breach of some other portion of the contract of carriage. The airline was basically in a position per their own contract, of auctioning off a seat on their own plane and they got pissy and called the police, which was improper, and then the police didn't bother to evaluate the appropriateness of removal. Trespass doesn't apply, the passenger was authorized. Rescinding that state requires a basis in the contract, or FAA regulations or other law and so far the people engaging in victim blaming are providing a lot of jabber and no convincing explanations.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
I bet people continue shopping airline tickets on price and barely remember this in a week or two.