6 ms·

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

by libc 9y ago

trollied 9y ago
Some people appear to think that what they did wasn't legal. See: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-15.html#post9736108 http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forci...
- walterbell 9y ago
  This legal argument would explain both the CEO's twitter statements and the leaked letter. If airline employees cannot legally contribute to "overbooking" and if a passenger has different rights once seated, then there will be a legal settlement. In that scenario, every communication by United would need to serve dual PR and legal objectives.
- BlackFly 9y ago
  That is a fantastic link. Summary of the points: CFR 250.2a covers overbooking but only applies before boarding. Since the United employees had no confirmed reserved seats on the aircraft, they cannot be given priority over a customer with a confirmed reserved seat. The passenger was already boarded, so they cannot rely on oversales rules to refuse service. Instead they need to rely on their Contract of Carriage which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark. They publicly stated that their reason for asking him to leave was because he was selected by a computer, but this is not allowed by their rule 21. They had no legal right to refuse him service at that point.
  - true_religion 9y ago
    Yep, and in order to exercise his legal rights in this entirely civil case, he ought to have left the plane called his lawyer then gone before a judge. This whole act of struggling with the police is never going to get a good outcome. It will only escalate things from a civil matter to a criminal one.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Given that either the police were acting illegally or United must have falsely asserted facts that made the removal legal, it seems to me that it must have become criminal, either on the part of the police or, more likely, United's false police report, before any struggle.
      - true_religion 9y ago
        I think it's still up in the air as to if he had any kind of right to his seat. United asserts, they prioritise their employees gaining seats on the flight because their employees are actually necessary to the operation of this flight and others. It makes business sense, and its logical. There's no law on any book that will force someone to serve you, whether it be transportation wise or by letting you have use of their mobile property (land/residences are a special case). United can pick random people at any time to get off the flight, for any reason, and at worst it will be a contractural breach or a violation of a civil statue (like the overbooking clause). Once he was told to get off, he should have gotten off.
    - p49k 9y ago
      Absolutely not. In order for United to exercise THEIR civil rights in this entirely civil case and sue for lost revenue related to not being able to get their crew to Louisville, they should have let him fly after confirming his refusal to leave and then later pleaded their case before a judge. If United indeed had the right to reject him, they would have been compensated by the doctor. It was United, not the passenger, who escalated to violence in a purely civil matter. He did not force himself onto the plane, he simply declined to give up the seat he had already been given.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    "which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark" You should go back to law school. They can eject anyone at any time for any reason. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoice-woman-ejected-from-plane-trump-supporter http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoic... http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2017/02/06/detroit-metro-passenger-taken-plane/97552370/ http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
    - cmurf 9y ago
      You're wrong. Both of your examples would violate Rule 21, H, 1, and therefore removal is allowed. In the case under discussion, the passenger was not in breach of rule 21 for any of the listed reasons.
maxerickson 9y ago
So it was stupid business not to offer more money for other people to leave the plane (or to find some other way to move the crew), there's nothing to argue about there. What did they do that should be illegal? Overselling each flight makes the tickets cheaper. People want cheaper tickets. So it isn't obvious to me that over selling is wrong. Is the problem that they failed to stop the people boarding before deciding they didn't want to carry them on that flight?
- kps 9y ago
  An honest way to overbook would be to sell seats beyond capacity as standby.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    They are just selling all/most seats as standby.
  - _benedict 9y ago
    Selling "over-capacity" as stand-by is potentially problematic, as it's not at all clear when you're overcapacity. It's always a probability game. Classifying tickets as "stand-by" as soon as probability > 0 would likely reduce their desirability, resulting in less full planes and higher overall prices. The opposite setup would not, though. i.e., like refundable tickets, offer non-refundable guaranteed tickets that are locked out of the ticket system. This maintains the current pricing characteristics while offering travellers the option of paying more when it matters to them. Or a sliding scale of probability of being seated. If your typical ticket has a 99% chance of being seated, most people won't care to pay extra but they know they have the possibility of being booted and cannot possibly complain. The problem with all of these approaches is they add to the complexity of purchasing a ticket, which consumers generally don't like.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Everyone should note that they called law enforcement and law enforcement used physical force on the passenger. Should the airlines be prevented from ever contacting law enforcement? Is law enforcement not responsible for their own actions after the airline asks them to do something?
valuearb 9y ago
Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to). It's a system that works well. It keeps planes as full as possible. It keeps fares as low as possible. I'm not sure it should change based on one guy who decided he was too important to accept being bumped.
- jressey 9y ago
  Ask 10 people on the street how the compensation works today, maybe 2-3 will know. If you asked them 2 days ago, maybe 1. Point is the compensation is obfuscated. If people demanded their $1350 or whatever when this happened, things may be better.
- wedowhatwedo 9y ago
  One person who "decided he was too important to accept being bumped"? How about one person who expected the contract that he paid for in good faith to being fulfilled? Someone who made commitments to others based on that contract. Why is it now that the consumer always has no rights? Don't want your private information sold when using the internet? Don't use the internet. Don't want to be forcibly removed from a plane in which you followed all the rules for purchasing a ticket that was most likely non-refundable if you didn't show up, lost your rights for privacy by being searched to board the plane, stood in line to board the plane, was on time, boarded the plane to sit in an uncomfortable seat, maybe had to pay extra to store your luggage, then get beat up when you were told they weren't going to honor the contract? What is this country becoming?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The whole point is that the ticket doesn't actually guarantee a seat on a given flight. Bumping is in the contract.

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

by libc 9y ago

The fact that the airline technically didn't do anything illegal here really speaks to the lack of consumer protection laws in this country.

trollied 9y ago

Some people appear to think that what they did wasn't legal. See: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-15.html#post9736108 http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forci...

walterbell 9y ago
This legal argument would explain both the CEO's twitter statements and the leaked letter. If airline employees cannot legally contribute to "overbooking" and if a passenger has different rights once seated, then there will be a legal settlement. In that scenario, every communication by United would need to serve dual PR and legal objectives.
BlackFly 9y ago
That is a fantastic link. Summary of the points: CFR 250.2a covers overbooking but only applies before boarding. Since the United employees had no confirmed reserved seats on the aircraft, they cannot be given priority over a customer with a confirmed reserved seat. The passenger was already boarded, so they cannot rely on oversales rules to refuse service. Instead they need to rely on their Contract of Carriage which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark. They publicly stated that their reason for asking him to leave was because he was selected by a computer, but this is not allowed by their rule 21. They had no legal right to refuse him service at that point.
- true_religion 9y ago
  Yep, and in order to exercise his legal rights in this entirely civil case, he ought to have left the plane called his lawyer then gone before a judge. This whole act of struggling with the police is never going to get a good outcome. It will only escalate things from a civil matter to a criminal one.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Given that either the police were acting illegally or United must have falsely asserted facts that made the removal legal, it seems to me that it must have become criminal, either on the part of the police or, more likely, United's false police report, before any struggle.
    - true_religion 9y ago
      I think it's still up in the air as to if he had any kind of right to his seat. United asserts, they prioritise their employees gaining seats on the flight because their employees are actually necessary to the operation of this flight and others. It makes business sense, and its logical. There's no law on any book that will force someone to serve you, whether it be transportation wise or by letting you have use of their mobile property (land/residences are a special case). United can pick random people at any time to get off the flight, for any reason, and at worst it will be a contractural breach or a violation of a civil statue (like the overbooking clause). Once he was told to get off, he should have gotten off.
  - p49k 9y ago
    Absolutely not. In order for United to exercise THEIR civil rights in this entirely civil case and sue for lost revenue related to not being able to get their crew to Louisville, they should have let him fly after confirming his refusal to leave and then later pleaded their case before a judge. If United indeed had the right to reject him, they would have been compensated by the doctor. It was United, not the passenger, who escalated to violence in a purely civil matter. He did not force himself onto the plane, he simply declined to give up the seat he had already been given.
- valuearb 9y ago
  "which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark" You should go back to law school. They can eject anyone at any time for any reason. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoice-woman-ejected-from-plane-trump-supporter http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoic... http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2017/02/06/detroit-metro-passenger-taken-plane/97552370/ http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...
  - cmurf 9y ago
    You're wrong. Both of your examples would violate Rule 21, H, 1, and therefore removal is allowed. In the case under discussion, the passenger was not in breach of rule 21 for any of the listed reasons.

maxerickson 9y ago

So it was stupid business not to offer more money for other people to leave the plane (or to find some other way to move the crew), there's nothing to argue about there. What did they do that should be illegal? Overselling each flight makes the tickets cheaper. People want cheaper tickets. So it isn't obvious to me that over selling is wrong. Is the problem that they failed to stop the people boarding before deciding they didn't want to carry them on that flight?

kps 9y ago
An honest way to overbook would be to sell seats beyond capacity as standby.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They are just selling all/most seats as standby.
- _benedict 9y ago
  Selling "over-capacity" as stand-by is potentially problematic, as it's not at all clear when you're overcapacity. It's always a probability game. Classifying tickets as "stand-by" as soon as probability > 0 would likely reduce their desirability, resulting in less full planes and higher overall prices. The opposite setup would not, though. i.e., like refundable tickets, offer non-refundable guaranteed tickets that are locked out of the ticket system. This maintains the current pricing characteristics while offering travellers the option of paying more when it matters to them. Or a sliding scale of probability of being seated. If your typical ticket has a 99% chance of being seated, most people won't care to pay extra but they know they have the possibility of being booted and cannot possibly complain. The problem with all of these approaches is they add to the complexity of purchasing a ticket, which consumers generally don't like.
maxerickson 9y ago
Everyone should note that they called law enforcement and law enforcement used physical force on the passenger. Should the airlines be prevented from ever contacting law enforcement? Is law enforcement not responsible for their own actions after the airline asks them to do something?

valuearb 9y ago

Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights. Overbooking means airlines can offer passengers refundable tickets. Occasionally they get it wrong and have too many people show up. So they offer compensation to get people to voluntarily give up seats. If they can't get people to voluntarily give up seats they have the right to pick who to deny service to (but by law have to pay specific compensation to). It's a system that works well. It keeps planes as full as possible. It keeps fares as low as possible. I'm not sure it should change based on one guy who decided he was too important to accept being bumped.

jressey 9y ago
Ask 10 people on the street how the compensation works today, maybe 2-3 will know. If you asked them 2 days ago, maybe 1. Point is the compensation is obfuscated. If people demanded their $1350 or whatever when this happened, things may be better.
wedowhatwedo 9y ago
One person who "decided he was too important to accept being bumped"? How about one person who expected the contract that he paid for in good faith to being fulfilled? Someone who made commitments to others based on that contract. Why is it now that the consumer always has no rights? Don't want your private information sold when using the internet? Don't use the internet. Don't want to be forcibly removed from a plane in which you followed all the rules for purchasing a ticket that was most likely non-refundable if you didn't show up, lost your rights for privacy by being searched to board the plane, stood in line to board the plane, was on time, boarded the plane to sit in an uncomfortable seat, maybe had to pay extra to store your luggage, then get beat up when you were told they weren't going to honor the contract? What is this country becoming?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The whole point is that the ticket doesn't actually guarantee a seat on a given flight. Bumping is in the contract.