United Airlines - Passenger removal

[ChicagoBlue]

I look forward to the lawsuit.

I only hope he doesn't settle out of court.

I look forward to it, too, but he will be wise to settle for the money!!!

 

[cucumberman]

I think he is standing on a technicality. If this goes to court and his interpretation stands, then the entire airline business will change....which is why I think it is wrong. Even so, this went so far beyond the DB issue once he decided not to comply with law enforcement.

Like I said, I've said my bit. Everyone has their opinion, so I'll bow out of the arguing semantics.

That is most likely what it will be, a technicality that was not known by those who were involved, perhaps unknowingly taking it as standard practice.

What the law professor is saying is that the passenger has every right not to comply with what is accepted as lawful IVDB because the request for him to IVDB is according to his analysis illegal in the first place. Rule 25, which was cited as the applied rule, can be interpreted as being able to IVDB a seated passenger, but it has such loose a definition that the drafter is in no position to interpret it as such. Rule 21, which does stipulate the procedure for IVDB, has a long list of criteria to exercise IVDB (such as health, intoxication, etc.) of which the passenger represents none of. These make both rules inapplicable in this instance.

I can see how it is easy for those not given the exact interpretation to misinterpret the two rules together. I should add particularly when given an hour or less to make decisions.

 

[TonyM]

So people who fly think they are above the rest?

 

[cibaman]

I think most people can recognise that the airline were legally within their right to complel him to leave the plane. But that's the nub of the problem. Airlines and airports are, necessarily, given huge powers over our liberties. Most people know that that's unavoidable. But the expectation is that they will only exercise those powers with discretion, when its absolutely necessary, not because it helps them sort out an internal problem of their making. In this case it seems that the airline's culture amounted to "we have the powers, we will use them when it suits us".

 

[pride in battle]

Thus, you realize you will probably NEVER be told to vacate.



* Done and Done, PLUS a voucher for ANOTHER FREE FLIGHT anytime within next 12 months!

Or, only accept bookings upto the capacity of the aircraft. Oh wait, wouldn't have mattered here, because this had NOTHING TO DO WITH ROUTINE OVERBOOKING. And, THE LAW says what can be done, with the airline within their rights to do as the law says. As I said, this only went south because of a security officer's response to a belligerent passenger.


Ignorance of the law excuses no one, and, again, you would probably never be asked unless you bought a third party consolidation fare on the internet!



You are absolutely right, it IS the airlines problem, which is why they followed the law in eliciting VOLUNTARY DBs first, then upping the ante when that became necessary. The airline doesntcare whether you're feeling selfish or not, because you bought a ticket to their party and it will happen how THEY say, not you, regardless of selfishness.



Again, NO-ONE got "the shit kicked out of them," but a passenger was forcibly removed from his seat, while resisting, and banged his face on the armrest opposite. He was then dragged from the plane because he refused to walk.



The internet is fickle. Here's hoping.

Fucking hell you sound like Hitler, keep saying it and you will believe the Airline did nothing wrong...
Two words...**** off

 

[cucumberman]

I think most people can recognise that the airline were legally within their right to complel him to leave the plane. But that's the nub of the problem. Airlines and airports are, necessarily, given huge powers over our liberties. Most people know that that's unavoidable. But the expectation is that they will only exercise those powers with discretion, when its absolutely necessary, not because it helps them sort out an internal problem of their making. In this case it seems that the airline's culture amounted to "we have the powers, we will use them when it suits us".

There is a developing discourse precursor to what you are saying, which is on the bolded part. Other than the law professor whose opinion I linked to, there is a building consensus among aviation attorneys and lawyers that it was wrongly applied in the first place. I'm not privy of aviation law so I am just sharing what they are all saying.

 

[domalino]

It's great that half a billion dollars was wiped of the stock as it may actually lead to situations like this not occurring.

If United had the systems in place so as not to fuck up and overbook a flight (with solely passengers or passengers alongside crew needing to be somewhere else) then fee paying customers may not be treated like dirt in the future.

It's going to take a hell of a lot of flights and profits to make up for the loss of market capitalisation this event triggered. Not to mention the lack of goodwill towards the company and future customers voting with their feet for future flights.

The stock will bounce back in a week. The same thing has happened before with United when someone wrote a song called "United breaks guitars" which went viral.

Stock plummeted and that grabbed headlines but was back to normal within a week.

 

[SWP's back]

Do you even understand what you are talking about? I give the fuck up!! You are talking bullshit, and gloating about your ignorance.

I'm off to bed. I have to fly a United Airlines aircraft tomorrow. Let the fun begin....

Nothing I said there is false. Unlike your triple promise of bowing out.

The passenger has lawyered up (two teams in fact) and I look forward to his win.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

I think this thread has proven to everyone what airline professionals at some airlines think of the passengers.

Best thing do is avoid those airlines like the plague and fly why better carriers. I'm a Qatar Airways Gold Card holder anyway as I fly a lot with work but you never get this sort of crap on their aircraft.

don't be silly, every airline that runs on a proper commercial basis bumps passengers. I am a gold card holder on British Airways and it has never happened to me either but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. there are lots of passengers who cant afford to fly business or first, or have to take a particular flight for timing purposes. you make yourself look like an arrogant prick when you post nonsense like this.

 

[SWP's back]

don't be silly, every airline that runs on a proper commercial basis bumps passengers. I am a gold card holder on British Airways and it has never happened to me either but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. there are lots of passengers who cant afford to fly business or first, or have to take a particular flight for timing purposes. you make yourself look like an arrogant prick when you post nonsense like this.

I don't fly business or first either nor did I say I was. I have a gold card as I'm a frequent flyer so why don't you get back inside your box and go back to being happy to being the subservient little thing.

I make no apologies for calling out shite practices such as bumping customers so they can ferry their staff about. You obviously think United have acted within their rights. I don't.