2 ms·

>- Overbooking (unnecessary) Flight #3411 wasn't overbooked. Instead, they were perfectly booked -- the plane had 70 seats and they sold all 70 with zero no-s

by jasode 10y ago

>- Overbooking (unnecessary) Flight #3411 wasn't overbooked. Instead, they were perfectly booked -- the plane had 70 seats and they sold all 70 with zero no-shows. That's a dream economic outcome for the airline. What threw the monkey wrench into the situation was adding 4 last-minute employees to the sold-out flight which required that they remove 4 paying customers already in their seats. United stopped the financial incentives at $800 and then called Chicago Aviation Police. The widespread media reporting it as "overbooked" (which was no doubt legitimized by the United CEO using the same "overbooked" language) successfully deflected part of the blame to some abstract concept ("it was the overbooking!"). Yes, people do get involuntarily bumped from overbookings all the time but that was not the situation with this specific flight.

kelnos 10y ago
I get this, and agree that the flight was not overbooked. However, let's assume for a minute that a flight was overbooked, and that the airline screwed up and issued boarding passes and seat assignments to more people than could fit on the plane. They start the boarding process before they realize their mistake. They ask for volunteers. No bites. They ask the computer to pick four unfortunate souls. One of the four won't leave the plane. Security is called. Security is overzealous and beats the guy up. I think this scenario is just as plausible as the one that played out. I bring this up because I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. Dr. Dao should certainly be focusing on United's improper use of IDB rules, since that's great grounds for a lawsuit. But let's say it was my hypothetical scenario. I suspect there would be just as much outrage. While I personally think it was foolish to refuse flight crew instructions (reading the news about anything airline-related in the past 15 years suggests that's going to get you in a lot of hot water), no one deserves to get beaten up like that for that "offense". Why are we focusing so hard on United's wrongdoing in the boarding process instead of focusing on why escalation of force is so accepted and easy?
- xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
  I disagree, it's quite different. Hypothetically, if they let you board and you get to your seat, and it is empty, they could just leave you be. Hypothetically, if you get to your seat, and it's occupied, one of two things could happen: You could deplane and the airline will put you on another flight, or you could somehow convince the person in your seat to let you fly. But this should never even happen! You shouldn't even board! Also, hypothetically, the airline could halt boarding, ask everyone to deplane, pick who they don't want to let on however they want, and let everyone else board. They could do so many things that aren't yanking a person of a plane when they're already seated, involuntarily. All of these hypothetical situations seem far more sane to me. We're focusing on United's wrongdoing because they are the ones who escalated to forcibly remove a passenger from the plane. They did not have to do that.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    If the number of available seats decreased for any reason after passengers had already boarded, as an airline I think I'd seriously consider deplaning all the passengers. But that's going to cause a huge bottleneck with a big plane so it's a difficult question.
- jasode 10y ago
  I think this scenario is just as plausible as the one that played out. Your alternative scenario of a true overbooking (overselling to other customers) is plausible but the subsequent escalation to violently pulling a seated passenger is not. The 2 situations put United personnel under very different psychological and monetary pressures: 1) overbook by overselling 70 seats to 74 paying customers. Nobody cancels and therefore, 4 of the customers have to be bumped. This is all visible on the computer reservations system and the gate agents can sort this out (offer vouchers, etc) before the last passengers board the plane. It would be very unusual to violently yank a seated customer out of the airplane just to accommodate one of the other 4 customers. 2) perfectly sell out 70 seats to 70 passengers but now you have a last-minute set of 4 airline employees who need a ride to Kentucky. If those airline employees (2 pilots & 2 stewards) don't get on that flight, it affects the plane in Kentucky with its own set of 60 passengers. The higher stakes in situation #2 is what escalated the situation into a broken nose and bloody face. United wasn't going to let one uncooperative passenger disrupt and cancel a 60-passenger flight in Kentucky. In other words, airlines prioritize their employees in a very different way than other overbooked customers waiting in standby for a seat on a plane. Flight #3411 just happened to shine a big spotlight on that difference.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    You're not responding to the hypothetical scenario as I laid it out, though. I stipulated that, due to a mistake, they actually board more people than they have seats. Exceedingly rare? Yes. But so was the scenario that actually happened. I do agree that the consideration of the 60-passenger flight in Kentucky would heighten things somewhat, but United itself wasn't directly responsible for the violence, the security team was. I doubt they had full context of what was going on beyond "we told this guy to leave and he won't; help us".

by jasode 10y ago

kelnos 10y ago

I get this, and agree that the flight was not overbooked. However, let's assume for a minute that a flight was overbooked, and that the airline screwed up and issued boarding passes and seat assignments to more people than could fit on the plane. They start the boarding process before they realize their mistake. They ask for volunteers. No bites. They ask the computer to pick four unfortunate souls. One of the four won't leave the plane. Security is called. Security is overzealous and beats the guy up. I think this scenario is just as plausible as the one that played out. I bring this up because I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. Dr. Dao should certainly be focusing on United's improper use of IDB rules, since that's great grounds for a lawsuit. But let's say it was my hypothetical scenario. I suspect there would be just as much outrage. While I personally think it was foolish to refuse flight crew instructions (reading the news about anything airline-related in the past 15 years suggests that's going to get you in a lot of hot water), no one deserves to get beaten up like that for that "offense". Why are we focusing so hard on United's wrongdoing in the boarding process instead of focusing on why escalation of force is so accepted and easy?

xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
I disagree, it's quite different. Hypothetically, if they let you board and you get to your seat, and it is empty, they could just leave you be. Hypothetically, if you get to your seat, and it's occupied, one of two things could happen: You could deplane and the airline will put you on another flight, or you could somehow convince the person in your seat to let you fly. But this should never even happen! You shouldn't even board! Also, hypothetically, the airline could halt boarding, ask everyone to deplane, pick who they don't want to let on however they want, and let everyone else board. They could do so many things that aren't yanking a person of a plane when they're already seated, involuntarily. All of these hypothetical situations seem far more sane to me. We're focusing on United's wrongdoing because they are the ones who escalated to forcibly remove a passenger from the plane. They did not have to do that.
- ghaff 10y ago
  If the number of available seats decreased for any reason after passengers had already boarded, as an airline I think I'd seriously consider deplaning all the passengers. But that's going to cause a huge bottleneck with a big plane so it's a difficult question.
jasode 10y ago
I think this scenario is just as plausible as the one that played out. Your alternative scenario of a true overbooking (overselling to other customers) is plausible but the subsequent escalation to violently pulling a seated passenger is not. The 2 situations put United personnel under very different psychological and monetary pressures: 1) overbook by overselling 70 seats to 74 paying customers. Nobody cancels and therefore, 4 of the customers have to be bumped. This is all visible on the computer reservations system and the gate agents can sort this out (offer vouchers, etc) before the last passengers board the plane. It would be very unusual to violently yank a seated customer out of the airplane just to accommodate one of the other 4 customers. 2) perfectly sell out 70 seats to 70 passengers but now you have a last-minute set of 4 airline employees who need a ride to Kentucky. If those airline employees (2 pilots & 2 stewards) don't get on that flight, it affects the plane in Kentucky with its own set of 60 passengers. The higher stakes in situation #2 is what escalated the situation into a broken nose and bloody face. United wasn't going to let one uncooperative passenger disrupt and cancel a 60-passenger flight in Kentucky. In other words, airlines prioritize their employees in a very different way than other overbooked customers waiting in standby for a seat on a plane. Flight #3411 just happened to shine a big spotlight on that difference.
- kelnos 10y ago
  You're not responding to the hypothetical scenario as I laid it out, though. I stipulated that, due to a mistake, they actually board more people than they have seats. Exceedingly rare? Yes. But so was the scenario that actually happened. I do agree that the consideration of the 60-passenger flight in Kentucky would heighten things somewhat, but United itself wasn't directly responsible for the violence, the security team was. I doubt they had full context of what was going on beyond "we told this guy to leave and he won't; help us".