-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
United Airlines violently drags a doctor off a plane so employee could take his seat
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
vasametropolis
Member
If he did it to them, it would have been terrorism though? I of course agree with not derailing, but I'm genuinely curious. I don't see why the door should only swing one way.
Ripped from top hit, could be inaccurate
If you can't tell, I'm having fun with it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That...might be going a little overboard. Don't hurt your case by misrepresenting what happened.
milkham
Member
lol good luck trying to get a court to agree that airport cops committed an act of terrorism. The door only goes one way.
vasametropolis
Member
Well then that's retarded and laws are useless. In my opinion it's no morally different, but if unwinnable fine.
If I'm understanding this situation correctly...
1). overbooking is a thing that is imperfect, legal, and might or might not be justified
2). as soon as it became clear that some customers would have to be deplaned, volunteers were sought, and offered a graduated amount of United credit until the amount approached the amount of cash United would have to give to someone in compensation for involuntarily bumping them
3). at this point, apparently (possibly?) by some algorithm, customers were chosen to be involuntarily bumped, and one of those refused to oblige
4). security (supplied by the Chicago Department of Aviation, it seems) was then called in to force the customer to disembark the plane
Right?
So a couple questions to start with: first, in relation to the specific situation being discussed in this thread, during which of those steps (1-4 + whatever I missed) was there a fuck up that moved the situation toward its horrible conclusion? Secondly, talking in a more general sense, which of those steps need to be changed/refined/clarified/whatever else on either a corporate or legal level, for business, social justice/consumer rights, and/or broader economic reasons?
I ask all this because I'm wondering what the takeaway from this situation should be. Obviously United sucks, but a lot of the factors that went into this particular situation are common across all airlines, and also reflect governmental standards across a good chunk of the world. Did this happen because of something specific to United? The corporate culture at United seems conducive to a poor application of common airline practices (e.g., an underemphasis on good customer service makes them a little quick to call in security) , but how much of what happened relates to that, and how much to the practices themselves? Should overbooking not be a thing? Is airline security ill-equipped to handle these kind of situations, or is the type of security we saw in the video a little too accessible for airlines to make use of in these kinds of situations in the first place?
Guess the key thing I'm conflicted on is this: I know this incident should spark change, but I don't know where that change should be concentrated.
1). overbooking is a thing that is imperfect, legal, and might or might not be justified
2). as soon as it became clear that some customers would have to be deplaned, volunteers were sought, and offered a graduated amount of United credit until the amount approached the amount of cash United would have to give to someone in compensation for involuntarily bumping them
3). at this point, apparently (possibly?) by some algorithm, customers were chosen to be involuntarily bumped, and one of those refused to oblige
4). security (supplied by the Chicago Department of Aviation, it seems) was then called in to force the customer to disembark the plane
Right?
So a couple questions to start with: first, in relation to the specific situation being discussed in this thread, during which of those steps (1-4 + whatever I missed) was there a fuck up that moved the situation toward its horrible conclusion? Secondly, talking in a more general sense, which of those steps need to be changed/refined/clarified/whatever else on either a corporate or legal level, for business, social justice/consumer rights, and/or broader economic reasons?
I ask all this because I'm wondering what the takeaway from this situation should be. Obviously United sucks, but a lot of the factors that went into this particular situation are common across all airlines, and also reflect governmental standards across a good chunk of the world. Did this happen because of something specific to United? The corporate culture at United seems conducive to a poor application of common airline practices (e.g., an underemphasis on good customer service makes them a little quick to call in security) , but how much of what happened relates to that, and how much to the practices themselves? Should overbooking not be a thing? Is airline security ill-equipped to handle these kind of situations, or is the type of security we saw in the video a little too accessible for airlines to make use of in these kinds of situations in the first place?
Guess the key thing I'm conflicted on is this: I know this incident should spark change, but I don't know where that change should be concentrated.
What a giant cunt
TangoAlphaLima
Member
All the armchair lawyers in here should probably read a real aviation lawyer's take on this:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/
And to his last part, 14 CFR 250.2a states "In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily."
Now, look at the summary of events posted earlier in this thread, which appears to be from the CEO:
United isn't denying that the seats sought were for a different United crew, as has been reported by other passengers on that flight. So this was not an "oversold flight" as required by the federal regulation. And in fact, the title of 14 CFR 250 is "Oversales". As a result, these regulations do not seem to apply to the situation at hand, where United was attempting to bump passengers not due to oversold tickets, but rather to get their crew on the flight.
So yeah, please continue telling everyone that this passenger doesn't have a cause of action to file suit against United. There will be a settlement on this, and it will be deserved.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/
And to his last part, 14 CFR 250.2a states "In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily."
Now, look at the summary of events posted earlier in this thread, which appears to be from the CEO:
United isn't denying that the seats sought were for a different United crew, as has been reported by other passengers on that flight. So this was not an "oversold flight" as required by the federal regulation. And in fact, the title of 14 CFR 250 is "Oversales". As a result, these regulations do not seem to apply to the situation at hand, where United was attempting to bump passengers not due to oversold tickets, but rather to get their crew on the flight.
So yeah, please continue telling everyone that this passenger doesn't have a cause of action to file suit against United. There will be a settlement on this, and it will be deserved.
Anderson Cooper: "That statement by the CEO has got to be among one of the worst statements I've heard from a CEO."
Video here:
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/851600794239545345
Video here:
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/851600794239545345
ChimpBottle
Member
Isn't that kind of typical of people that ask questions? If they knew the answer to the question then they probably wouldn't need to ask the question.
depths20XX
Member
I don't understand what you mean. If he was an airline employee who asked them to get off the plane forcefully? This discussion just seems misplaced. It's bad business practices that ended in a terrible situation. I don't see how terrorism fits in unless you have a misunderstanding of the term. I don't think it's relevant to this topic.
Audioboxer
Member
Employees probably have some 'claim' that they need to get to the destination on time to be used on connecting flights. I'm assuming they were on work, not on a pleasure trip.
I give up with the constant emotional remarks of I'm defending the actions. I'm not. I'm doing what anyone critically trying to decipher whether there is a lawsuit against the bumping and the violence, or just excessive force. We're all going to get an answer here anyway, lawyers will be all over this. Although I did post one lawyer a few pages back saying for better or worse the lawsuit here will be around excessive force, not an airline being able to ask you to leave the cabin, because he says they can.
Why can't this shit be discussed? It'll affect the future and what people can and can't expect airlines to be able to do after the gate. Fair enough I should maybe have waited a few days, but the conversation snowballed from one or two questions to about 15 different people debating and me constantly replying to people. Isn't that what the forums exist for? I've learned some shit I didn't know and I'll be damned if it's just me who's lacking in 'knowledge' around this. While everyone can agree using physical violence is unacceptable and UA fucked up, I don't see why from that it's not reasonable to try and realize all the points they fucked up on, and some where they might not be able to be legally attacked.
I haven't seen many engaging with Syriel for this http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=233694414 Covering many attempts to discuss things objectively. Yes it's one huge post which is easy to ignore versus all of mine. However, as I said most of mine have been replying to people quoting me. Anyway, I'll give it a rest unless for a night. I genuinely did email the author of that AP article asking if they know more about the airline being able to bump in the cabin.
newtypepilot
Member
They didn't bump people off because of flight being overbooked, but for employees who had to be in Louisville to work on a different flight.
vasametropolis
Member
Cooper is too chill. Always liked him though.
MHWilliams
Member
I mean, if you want to have the legal conversation, by all means.
I'm not particularly interested in that myself, as there are a whole host of things that are legal that are not good. We've long discussed that the police have a strong legal stronghold in practices that I would consider unethical at best and heinous at worst. The same is true of many corporate practices. This is one of those situations.
As such, the legality is simply a matter of what they can enforce. It does not change the fact that it's not good.
Shogmaster
Member
And they just keep doubling down.
As someone with a business degree, this level of PR disaster is absolutely fascinating to me. This would make a hilarious HBS case of what not to do in a sticky situation.
I think the only thing that could save them at this point is literally offering thousands upon thousands of free flights on a single day or some shit. They would just have to make sure not to overbook....
vasametropolis
Member
I'm merely suggesting that if the roles were reversed and the passenger was the aggressor, it could have been labelled as an act of terror. Am I way out of normal bounds on this? Absolutely. I just wonder if anyone has ever thought of labelling law enforcement as terrorists, as that's what they appear to be to me these days.
I have completely lost respect for all law enforcement already in my life though, so maybe that's why I'm even thinking from this angle.
I do generally agree that this is a wild way to look at it, but strictly morally speaking, I'd classify it the same. If it can actually be classified as such is another story. Most likely not.
I am just blown away by the situation. To me they should receive maximum punishment and I'm just trying to figure out how one could really put the screws to them; if it were me I'd try to ruin their lives
Audioboxer
Member
Again, I don't disagree, but until it can be deciphered whether it's legal or not, it can't be challenged correctly. If it is illegal then the way consumers can fight back will be different than if it's legal (for one lawsuits aren't going to be as 'easy' against something that is legal). You need to know what a perceived injustice is, to be able to fight against it.
Plus it's not just snowballing as a case for America but the EU too. Legislation in the EU almost mirrors the US. Just currency differences in compensation.
Even if the CEO goes, the staff are fired and something happens with that nutcase cop, if the policy is legal it could still continue (I just bet you'd see airlines skip customers to keep asking the next in line, rather than ever use force again).
NYR
Member
Yep. CEO has to go, talking out of one side of his mouth and then doing the other side to the employees. He fucked up, I really hope this is a lesson for them and he is forced out for this stupidity. Just goes to show he cares more about the bottom line than serving his customers and driving revenue that way
and that was his better statement, not the recent email one.
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
I'd be curious to see if enough public pressure and resentment could cause him to resign. If the CEO brings the company profit, and he does in this case, I don't see any board firing him at all otherwise. Unless this causes enough of a financial hit - and to be honest, I doubt many of these people claiming never to fly with United again will remember this in a month's time - I think he'll ride this through.
So that witness demolishes official line from United and police how doctor was loud, behaving badly etc. and was driving reason for why he was removed.
MHWilliams
Member
Yep yep. As I said, you can have that conversation and I'm certainly not shutting it down. I'm just not interested in engaging with it at this time.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-last-month/zEQ0ezVpPkOpmFBCPDRt2I/story.html
Communicator of the Year, ladies and gentlemen!
Dude is so fired.
shanafan
Member
What a POS. They had no right to physically abuse the man. No right.
old manatee
Banned
Yeah that's pretty damning all around. I don't buy the random computer lottery thing anymore either. They singled the doctor out because he initially thought he might be able to do it.
This feels like one of those things that spirals out of control until he has to quit. And where else will united find a sociopath with an MBA who can focus solely on quarterly earnings and screwing consumers at every turn.
Again united is the real victim.
This is an interesting wrinkle in the conversation, and now we're getting into legal issues that I doubt most of us in this thread know especially well.
But I'd hesitate to conclude that what happened doesn't register as "overbooking" because employees had to be accounted for. If it's standard procedure to have a standby crew (this is how the article TangoAlphaLima linked to characterized the employees in question), or to ensure seats are available to employees for whatever logistical reasons, does the law on overbooking keep that in mind when considering available seats, or does it refer to literally every potential passenger seat on the plane?
TangoAlphaLima
Member
The lawyer from the article I posted seems to think overbooking protocol doesn't apply when the seats being sought are for United employees, so I'm going to defer to him on this one.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Yeah, that's a pretty interesting twist that he originally offered then rescinded and then "magically" got picked to give up his seat.
Spooky Scary Skeleton
Member
I did a project for a major airline. This particular airlines system to control flights on the backend was OS3200.
It literally took them 4 weeks to provision a single desktop PC. Someone would have to call the Active Directory team to "Create the AD object" then once that was done, someone else could image the machine with SCCM. Then depending on the type of PC it was, IE was it a gate pc or a check in pc, ticketing machine or a kiosk it needed certain permissions all of which were controlled by back end databases. No problem right? Wrong. One of those systems was a back end SQL database, where they had a guy, literally a single guy who all he did was manually receive the request and put it into the database. For other types of PCs there were two people, and they would receive the request assign it a number, then wait a week to two weeks for the OS3200 mainframe to do a full dump of its data and re import it all back into the system. Their tracking method to keep track of these assignments? Literally printed out pieces of paper kept in a drawer at their desks.
The craziest part for me was the OS3200 mainframe that controlled everything was managed by one guy, who started at the company in like 1968, and had been managing the mainframe since the 70s and he was still there. I'm like this dude has been jacking with this manframe longer than i've been alive.
Part of my task was to automate all this, and to document/discover it all. It never got done because of dysfunction at the airline and my own company. No one would make a damn decision. The back end SQL automation was super easy, but no one cared. Very annoying, was so happy to get the hell off that project.
It literally took them 4 weeks to provision a single desktop PC. Someone would have to call the Active Directory team to "Create the AD object" then once that was done, someone else could image the machine with SCCM. Then depending on the type of PC it was, IE was it a gate pc or a check in pc, ticketing machine or a kiosk it needed certain permissions all of which were controlled by back end databases. No problem right? Wrong. One of those systems was a back end SQL database, where they had a guy, literally a single guy who all he did was manually receive the request and put it into the database. For other types of PCs there were two people, and they would receive the request assign it a number, then wait a week to two weeks for the OS3200 mainframe to do a full dump of its data and re import it all back into the system. Their tracking method to keep track of these assignments? Literally printed out pieces of paper kept in a drawer at their desks.
The craziest part for me was the OS3200 mainframe that controlled everything was managed by one guy, who started at the company in like 1968, and had been managing the mainframe since the 70s and he was still there. I'm like this dude has been jacking with this manframe longer than i've been alive.
Part of my task was to automate all this, and to document/discover it all. It never got done because of dysfunction at the airline and my own company. No one would make a damn decision. The back end SQL automation was super easy, but no one cared. Very annoying, was so happy to get the hell off that project.
Please don't use the "R" word.
NeOak
Member
I am amazed how IAH/HOU work at all with things like these.
orientalNoodle
Banned
I bought a united ticket a few days ago. Hope they beat me up like this situation.
And the law also talks about planes "in-flight" which are clearly on the ground.
Most airlines will do this at no charge if they have space available.
What you're asking for is regulated services. Which is what the US had up until the 80s. You'll get better service, higher reliability, and higher prices. Which is certainly an option and may be worth returning to since the market has promoted a race-to-the-bottom. But higher prices will price out some low fare flyers.
When you're flying coast-to-coast for $300 or less, you're not making the airline a profit. You're keeping it from losing more money (as there is a fixed cost to flying the plane), but the full cost of that seat is being subsidized by higher fare flyers.
Going back to regulated services will mean less of a range of prices, and likely more flexibility in buying close-in, at the cost of a higher average fare price. Great for the upper-middle-class set that can absorb the cost. No-as-great for the lower-middle-class.
There are legal requirements around rest periods. Not meeting that requirement means the crew cannot legally work.
That is likely. You can sometimes get a little above the legally mandated minimum payout if you negotiate voluntarily for vouchers, but the airline isn't going to pay out more than the legal amount for an invol.
That's one of the issues that was cited by the NYU Law Review paper I quoted in my last post.
I don't have a Lexis account, but the bit that came to mind earlier was from 49 U.S.C. § 46501 which defines an aircraft in-flight.
That section you quote does not contradict what I said earlier. It adds an "on tarmac" definition to avoid airlines claiming that a flight has not taken off (which is normally recorded when the announcement is made that boarding is over and the door is closed) while at the same time preventing passengers from deplaning.
Basically, if passengers can get on-and-off the plane, boarding is still occurring and the plane is not "in-flight" or "on tarmac." Once the door shuts or the crew tells the passengers they cannot disembark then the timer for "on tarmac" starts for recording delays before takeoff.
In this very case, that would not apply to indicate that boarding had been concluded as the airline reps were very clearly trying to get people off the plane. It had not yet met either condition that would move it from the "boarding" status to "in-flight" or "on tarmac" status.
You only get the cash if it is invol. If voluntary, then it is vouchers.
United picks people after sorting by FF status, fare class, and check-in time. Individuals are then chosen from the lowest ranked group. Basically, if you are a no status flyer, who always buys the cheapest fare and you don't check-in until you arrive at the airport, you are in the group that is most likely to get bumped should you be unlucky enough to end up in an invol situation.
All airlines follow the same procedures regarding voluntary and invol bumps. No other US airline is going to throw shade, because they do the same and as soon as they throw shade they know it's going to come back and bite them in the ass.
This is not a United problem. This is a systemic problem.
Other airlines can and do do this. Yes, they can legally move on to invol bumps if no one accepts a voluntary bump. The only thing that would prevent another airline from doing so right now is public image and the PR hit. There is no law or regulation preventing them from doing so.
Once you are chosen for an invol bump, the only option is cash.
Voluntary and invol always includes travel home in addition to the comp. The cash comp for an invol bump doesn't strand you. The cash comp is the legal requirement to compensate you for the delay.
The question as to if it is enough is a legitimate one, but it is designed so that people don't have to go to court to hash out how much their time is worth. The statue provides a value.
The court of public opinion is the strongest venue for change, but it will quickly fade. People, in general, are selfish and aren't going to bother sticking with a cause beyond Facebook and Twitter. To see real change, there will need to be action from Congress. And with the GOP in charge, you're more likely to find an undiscovered swimming hole in Death Valley than get aviation regulations changed.
And here is another aviation lawyer:
Alexander Bachuwa said:
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/
That is a given.
Employees (or people flying on employee passes) for pleasure are the lowest-of-the-low when it comes to boarding priority. They'll get bumped off for pretty much anyone else at a moment's notice.
Employees who are traveling for work are usually tagged as must fly, with the exception being commuting crew who don't live at their home base.
He does. However, there's a practical issue to be considered here that makes me wonder how the law has been applied. Because we know it's incredibly common to oversell tickets, right? If it's also common to account for employees when considering seat availability for costumers, how often has overbooking law actually been applicable to the situations its been invoked in? Do airlines typically make a different choice from United, and simply don't seat their employees when a flight has reached capacity? And if there's some meaningful reason that employees need to be prioritized sometimes (or regularly), well, doesn't there seem to be a bit of tension there, depending on how you interpret overbooking law?
Best case I've seen so far for United getting smoked in court on this. The flight wasn't even oversold. They're cooked. Or at least, they should be.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Ah yes, the aviation lawyer that gives no actual analysis of the situation, yet comes to the conclusion that the airline was in the right. And from the blogger who blames the victim. Great source you have there.
My source pointed out how the facts of this case differ from a standard overbooking, and noted that it was a potential gray area at best, and at worst was simply not authorized under federal law. I think my source is just a bit more credible than yours.
This probably happens all the time, but passengers don't actually know they're being bumped for another flight crew, because the airline isn't dumb enough to do it at the last minute after the plane is 100% boarded. The airlines probably just tell passengers the flight was overbooked at the gate, not mentioning that some or all of those "overbooked" seats are being given to airline employees. Had United done this, no one would have known the difference, and we wouldn't have the awful video of the passenger being dragged down the aisle. They botched this horribly.
I want to see this guy destroyed. Fuck him, hope he rots in prison and has to sell his cars and properties to pay the victim. He deserves no less than that. Damn, absolutely zero remorse or regret, he's a piece of shit.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
People keep brushing over the use of force. It's not clear that forced removal was authorised in this case. It doesn't seem to fall under any of the published rules. There is nothing about forced removal under the sections about overbooking and it's not clear the customer did anything that would require forced removal when looking at the sections that do reference it.
The story is about the forced removal of a passenger, it's not clear to me that this was done in accordance with regulations at all.
They can't just violently pull you from a plane for any reason and it's not clear that an overbooked flight is a reason that's covered to violently assault someone to free up a seat
Calamari41
41 > 38
Wow, that letter from the CEO is something else. I'm surprised he didn't call the passenger a cuck while he was at it.
- Status