United Airlines initiates self-immolation

[Doggy Daddy]

The same right a business has to kick you out of their store.  If you don't leave voluntarily, you will be forced out by those authorized to use force.

The doctor was not looking for a gay wedding cake, and United is not a Christian Bakery.  Therefore the doctor may be frog marched off the plane and bloodied up a bit. /sarc

[Perd Hapley]

Meh. Grope 'em before they get on. Grab 'em & throw 'em out later on. Same-same.

The same right a business has to kick you out of their store.  If you don't leave voluntarily, you will be forced out by those authorized to use force.

Just because a person has a ticket for a flight, that does not mean that person has a right to be on that flight.  If United decides to remove a passenger for any legal reason, then United may do so and may request the police assist.

He should have had a wedding cake with him, with two grooms on it.


Ah, Doggy Daddy beat me to it.

[Doggy Daddy]

Ah, Doggy Daddy beat me to it.

24 seconds, bay-bee!! 

And I see that in keeping with the topic you chose to phrase it as "beat me to it."

[dogmush]

"The same right a business has to kick you out of their store.  If you don't leave voluntarily, you will be forced out by those authorized to use force."

No.

MAJOR difference.

The passenger has already paid to be sitting in that seat. He's entered into a service contract with the airline (something you don't do just by walking into a brick and mortar store location).

Where's the due justification and cause for the police to be called into what is not a police matter?

It cannot be considered an trespassing issue, because A) the financial contract that exists between the passenger and the airline and B) because quietly sitting in your seat refusing a general cash offer to vacate the seat is NOT grounds to involve police.

There's an entire section of United's Contract of Carriage about overbooked flights and denying boarding/travel.  The contract you alluded to gives them the right to kick him off the plane.  They would have been required to offer him some compensation for doing so , but not once he broke the law.  That gives them the right to just heave him off.

And had you flown recently you would have remembered the part in every flight where they say: "Failure to follow the Flight Crew's instructions is a violation of Federal Law".  Once the crew told him to leave, and he didn't it was a criminal matter and the police were correct to be involved.

Not saying it's a good idea on United's part, nor that it looks good on the police, but both groups are very likely on pretty solid legal footing.  The coming PR shitstorm should be epic, however.

[makattak]

"The same right a business has to kick you out of their store.  If you don't leave voluntarily, you will be forced out by those authorized to use force."

No.

MAJOR difference.

The passenger has already paid to be sitting in that seat. He's entered into a service contract with the airline (something you don't do just by walking into a brick and mortar store location).

Where's the due justification and cause for the police to be called into what is not a police matter?

It cannot be considered an trespassing issue, because A) the financial contract that exists between the passenger and the airline and B) because quietly sitting in your seat refusing a general cash offer to vacate the seat is NOT grounds to involve police.

My understanding of the law is the airline reserves the right to revoke the ticket for any reason. (With due compensation required.)

They enacted that clause in order to forcibly bump him off the plane and replace him with an employee.

From what I've been reading, the clauses MIGHT require that it be done pre-boarding, so there may be dispute about the legality of the bumping. (Which is why I said they "likely acted completely lawfully".)

My point was that, even if they were completely within the law (which there is some dispute), this was a monumentally stupid decision.

Also, they called the CHICAGO police. I'm seriously doubting they can legitimately claim to be surprised that violence ensued.

[Doggy Daddy]

And had you flown recently you would have remembered the part in every flight where they say: "Failure to follow the Flight Crew's instructions is a violation of Federal Law".  Once the crew told him to leave, and he didn't it was a criminal matter and the police were correct to be involved.

And if they had instructed him to deboard at 30,000' ... ?

[dogmush]

And if they had instructed him to deboard at 30,000' ... ?

COMPLY!! CITIZEN!!!!

What?  I don't make the rules, nor am I defending them.  I just fly a lot, and unlike some folks I listen when they tell me the rules.  It's the Feds.  You can probably be arrested for failing to D.B. Cooper if told to.

[RevDisk]

The same right a business has to kick you out of their store.  If you don't leave voluntarily, you will be forced out by those authorized to use force.

Just because a person has a ticket for a flight, that does not mean that person has a right to be on that flight.  If United decides to remove a passenger for any legal reason, then United may do so and may request the police assist.

Absolutely, the airline was 100% in the right legally.

Ethically? PR wise? Yeah, not so much. The airline industry generally relies on public bailouts every couple decades to remain 'profitable'. Kicking customers TOO much in the teeth isn't the best business decision, even if generally you get the government to foot the bill if things don't work out. Generally, this isn't meant literally.

Airlines gamble on overbooking. They assume X percent of people will cancel, and they get to keep the cancellation fees. It's legal but DOT legally requires the airlines to ask for volunteers in exchange for compensation. Of course, the compensation isn't mandated, so it could be one stale peanut. Then yes, they can involuntary bump folks. That is actually regulated. If they get you to your destination within an hour, you don't get squat. If one to two hours, 200% of one way fare. >2 hours, 400%, but only up to a $1350 max. Offering $800 is significantly cheaper than offering $1350 because the government makes you do so. Airlines don't complain about 'burdensome regulations' because they know they make far more off gaming overbooking. That's even without folks forgetting to get written confirmations and filing appropriately for the compensation.

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights


Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea. It's an optics issue. The airlines logically shouldn't expect happiness or sympathy from the public with the overbooking thing. Calling the cops on someone sane, mostly law bidding and rational is a wild card. In this case, the airlines lost because the Chicago cops acted like... well, Chicago cops. It's not 1990's LAPD, but still.

Mal: You called the Feds.
Jayne: I got pinched!
Mal: Which is what happens when you call the Feds.

Fairness and whatnot doesn't matter to the public. If the guy was an oil company exec or on his way to a furry convention, this wouldn't be a consideration. Doctor is respectable enough. Airlines aren't usually beloved. United should just be very very thankful they arranged to have an Asian minority beat down on their aircraft. I'm quite sure that as bad as this is, their CEO was very very grateful the Chicago cops didn't beat down a law abidding black man on camera in their aircraft. THAT would have been a truly epic PR situation.

[Fly320s]

And if they had instructed him to deboard at 30,000' ... ?

There is a fee for that.

[K Frame]

There's an entire section of United's Contract of Carriage about overbooked flights and denying boarding/travel.  The contract you alluded to gives them the right to kick him off the plane.  They would have been required to offer him some compensation for doing so , but not once he broke the law.  That gives them the right to just heave him off.

And had you flown recently you would have remembered the part in every flight where they say: "Failure to follow the Flight Crew's instructions is a violation of Federal Law".  Once the crew told him to leave, and he didn't it was a criminal matter and the police were correct to be involved.

Not saying it's a good idea on United's part, nor that it looks good on the police, but both groups are very likely on pretty solid legal footing.  The coming PR shitstorm should be epic, however.

My point is that United very likely violated their own policy, as it seems that technically they did not oversell the flight. They wanted to ship an employee somewhere else, and employees on company business don't pay.

You can't claim a violation of policy by the passenger if the airline didn't meet the standards required by its policy, either. If they get a pass to do that, essentially it means that there are no rules, and the airline could simply - and possibly legally - collect your money and simply fail to provide a flight at all, claiming everyone was "bumped."

[K Frame]

There is a fee for that.

That wins the internets for the day.

[Fly320s]

My point is that United very likely violated their own policy, as it seems that technically they did not oversell the flight. They wanted to ship an employee somewhere else, and employees on company business don't pay.

You can't claim a violation of policy by the passenger if the airline didn't meet the standards required by its policy, either.

I don't know how UAL books their must-ride travelers, but at my airline the airline pays itself a fee.  When I go to training, my reservation information shows a fee paid to book me positive space.   Maybe that is the airline loophole.

[K Frame]

Then we still have the curious question of why were the Chicago police called instead of TSA?

Aren't airliners under Federal jurisdiction?

Makes you wonder if TSA was called and told them to SOD THE F'OFF so they went enforcement shopping.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I imagine that next time United goes to the fed.gov hat in hand, asking for yet another bailout, they better hope that this video doesn't somehow show up ALL OVER THE NEWS again.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Then we still have the curious question of why were the Chicago police called instead of TSA?

Aren't airliners under Federal jurisdiction?

Makes you wonder if TSA was called and told them to SOD THE F'OFF so they went enforcement shopping.

From one of the articles I read it wasn't Chicago PD. Rather, it was Chicago Aviation Police.   Sworn LE, go through the same police academy (hence the same beat first ask questions later approach as regular CPD) but not allowed to carry firearms.  Which is just about the only way this thing could have gotten worse.

[K Frame]

I don't know how UAL books their must-ride travelers, but at my airline the airline pays itself a fee.  When I go to training, my reservation information shows a fee paid to book me positive space.   Maybe that is the airline loophole.

Line item transfer between company accounts. Same thing happens when I go for required off-site training which, thank God, doesn't happen much anymore.

Legally I'm not sure whether it would be considered to be the same thing as a third-party paying customer. I would tend to think not.

[TechMan]

Then we still have the curious question of why were the Chicago police called instead of TSA?

Aren't airliners under Federal jurisdiction?

Makes you wonder if TSA was called and told them to SOD THE F'OFF so they went enforcement shopping.

TSA doesn't have any arrest powers (except Fed Air Marshals), that is why the airport police are there.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2016/07/tsa-myth-busters-do-tsa-officers-arrest.html

[Ben]

"I'm not excusing United dragging the guy off the plane, but geez, I guess I'm out of touch with the definition of "good deal"."

I've not flown since the early 1990s (and I never intend to fly again), but I get the feeling that for a lot of people, given the monumental amount of *expletive deleted*it that they have to deal with security wise (squeeze your balls today, sir?) and the ever growing number of fees that people are less and less likely to respond to offers like this because it means doubling or even tripling down on the amount of *expletive deleted*it you have to go through.

Quite possible it's not as good a deal as it used to be. I'm only looking at flying once or so a year these days, and only in First, because I can't sit in back anymore. I can't. I won't. So I can see wanting to just get it over with.

Even when flying was a little easier, I recall one time I was holding out for a better deal and someone else took a round trip ticket because I was on my way back from a bad work trip to DC, had already been screwed once (ORD is the worst airport in the country) and just wanted to finally make my last leg home. I would have needed way more than a free ticket to the lower 48 to make me stay behind, even just 4-5 hours.

[K Frame]

TSA doesn't have any arrest powers (except Fed Air Marshals), that is why the airport police are there.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2016/07/tsa-myth-busters-do-tsa-officers-arrest.html

I know TSA doesn't have arrest powers. I should have been more precise, I was using TSA as a catch all for everything evil in the Fed lane in airports...

I thought airplanes were under Federal jurisdiction, so what's up with the local bum rush squad being called in? Or is it a joint and several kind of thing?

[Fly320s]

I know TSA doesn't have arrest powers. I should have been more precise, I was using TSA as a catch all for everything evil in the Fed lane in airports...

I thought airplanes were under Federal jurisdiction, so what's up with the local bum rush squad being called in? Or is it a joint and several kind of thing?

On the ground, local police have jurisdiction.  Every airport has their choice of who they use.  Boston uses MA State Police.  DFW has their own police force (with guns!).  Orlando uses Orlando PD.  Etc.

In the air, it is up to the Feds.  And by that I mean it is up to the Feds to try to pawn it off to local cops once we land.

[TechMan]

In case you want some more laughs: https://twitter.com/hashtag/UnitedMovieLines?src=hash

[K Frame]

On the ground, local police have jurisdiction.  Every airport has their choice of who they use.  Boston uses MA State Police.  DFW has their own police force (with guns!).  Orlando uses Orlando PD.  Etc.

In the air, it is up to the Feds.  And by that I mean it is up to the Feds to try to pawn it off to local cops once we land.

Well damn.

[Fly320s]

In case you want some more laughs: https://twitter.com/hashtag/UnitedMovieLines?src=hash

Those are hilarious.  I am so happy that I am not involved in that.  What a sh1tshow.

[TechMan]

Those are hilarious.  I am so happy that I am not involved in that.  What a sh1tshow.

[Brad Johnson]

In case you want some more laughs: https://twitter.com/hashtag/UnitedMovieLines?src=hash

"Every time a passenger's bell is rung a United agent gets his wings."


Is there a way to get this to display and have the animation stay active? I don't think I've ever, in my entire 49 years, seen something so funny and so true at the same time.
https://twitter.com/who__dat/status/851500354076364801


Brad