
Leaked email from United Airlines CEO blames passenger for violent removal - miraj
http://resistancereport.com/class-war/united-airlines-ceo-blames-passenger/
======
dingaling
This e-mail illustrates the complete imbalance of the "contract" of carriage
between passenger and airline, which is compounded by the Federal Aviation
Regulations that give the crew ultimate power even when there's no safety
risk[0].

The CEO states that the flight was 'fully boarded' and then later that it was
decided to 'deny boarding' to four passengers.

So was it fully boarded or not? It doesn't really matter, the airline can
change its language as it sees fit, to achieve its desired business objective
and the customer has no recourse.

I'm an aviation enthusiast but I don't fly commercial airlines any more for
this reason amongst others.

[0] Because when there's no safety risk they can just escalate until the
customer becomes aggravated, and then there's a safety risk.

~~~
cortesoft
What is the alternative to commercial airlines for someone who isn't crazy
rich?

~~~
tyingq
High speed rail would kill off a lot of shorter routes, but it just doesn't
work in the US for some reason.

When I was in the UK, I took the Virgin Rail from London to Manchester. The
additional room and ability to walk around made it so much better than a
flight. I would have paid more. The time difference was negligible once you
count all the extra screening time for airports.

~~~
valuearb
It doesn't work because it's crazy expensive to build tracks, and not cost
effective unless you have massive density.

Airlines are better, not just because planes are faster, but because of
flexibility. You can find a space somewhere and build a new airport, or add a
new runway to an existing airport and use less than one thousandth the land
the rail line will require. The planes you fly to one destination can suddenly
be switched to fly to almost any another destination, in a day.

Yea, the comfort of trains is better, but thats about it.

~~~
cm2187
It's not just about the comfort of seating in a train. It's about not having
to queue for 1h at security, being abused by TLA officers, queue again,
getting checked, queue again, getting checked, etc. Flying today feels like
going to jail.

~~~
govg
If you have as much commercial pressure in trains as you do in flights, then
I'm sure you will be asked to do the same sort of checks, and standing in
queues. This happens because flights are an easy target (due to high costs,
visibility and more favored view in the public eye). If we had someone
attacking train lines because they carried a lot of people, you would have
correspondingly sever safety regulations too.

~~~
tyingq
I feel like a lot of the security for flights is basically theater now. 9/11
worked because the passengers believed they were being hijacked, and had a
reasonable chance of surviving. Most of the procedure is chasing terrorist
strategy that isn't going to be used. They've already switched tactics (laptop
bombs, for example), and our current approach isn't helping much.

------
cube00
If they had just increased the compensation passengers would have voluntarily
given up their seat, everyone has their price. It didn't even need to be
money, free flights, upgrades, it costs them next to nothing, especially when
you consider this is still running in the media days later. Everyone hates to
hear they overbook flights so you'd think when they get bitten United would
take some of the savings made overbooking and spend it when it doesn't work
out. At the end of the day I have a sneaking suspicion they'll still be ahead.

~~~
mavelikara
I believe this is capped at a maximum of $1300. From [1]:

    
    
        If it’s more than two hours (four hours for international
        flights), or if the airline does not offer alternate 
        flights, the compensation is 400 percent of your one-way 
        fare, with a $1300 maximum.
    

[1] [http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-09-04/bumped-due-
to-o...](http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-09-04/bumped-due-to-
overbooking-airlines-owe-you-money-not-vouchers)

~~~
Dan_Nguyen
Isn't that their legal obligation though? Certainly they could have offered
more considering everyone was seated already, they had the crew for a future
flight to transport on time, and everyone was initially unwilling.

I think it's the timing that made things so difficult for them. If they asked
me at the gate I'd be willing to take $400 plus flight comps. If it's when I'm
already seated on the plane though (and reports said the man taken off was
seated and buckled in already), my price goes way up.

One would think that since the crew dropped the ball by pulling people this
late they would offer more money to make those guys volunteer happily.

~~~
govg
The video that was circulating online showed all the passengers seated and
buckled up, and the one guy being forcibly ousted from his seat. So yeah...

------
bradleyjg
Doesn't anyone with an ounce of PR sense work at this company? No one is
impressed by the legal technicalities. No one cares that the internal policies
were followed.

If they want to get out ahead of this they need to understand and come to
grips with the fact that they are well nigh universally perceived to have been
in the wrong.

~~~
tyingq
United is somewhat famous, even in the generally unfriendly airline industry,
for being ham-handed around PR and customer relations.

See [http://untied.com](http://untied.com), a parody/complaint site.

~~~
bertil
Oddly enough, the actual United website still praises their CEO for winning a
PR award.

------
mikhailt
This is what happens when you normalize violence, you focus on the blaming and
legal stuff instead and you get people like this CEO but no one is reacting to
the fact that a human being has been knocked out, dragged out like an animal
for something he didn't have to give up. He had a legitimate reason not to
give up his seat, he had patients he needed to see the next day. The airline
CANNOT act like the computer is right all the time (they said for randomizing
the seats to give up) and they should've been humans to understand and pick
someone else or increase their incentives.

Remember, the flight was NOT overbooked. They said they needed to get their
four employees to a different state, so they wanted four people off the plane.
This is all spinning by the airline, listen to the specifics.

I don't care whose fault it was, there was absolutely no need for that
violence in the first place, the escalation was not justified in any
situations. The protocol needs to be changed, that's what people need to start
asking for. Change the policy to include exemptions such as doctors or others
(firefighters, cops, etc), increase the incentives and so on.

The airline should've done its job correctly by informing their customers
BEFORE boarding the plane and upping the incentives until it gets their goal.
The customers should not be forced to give up what they paid before because
the airline screwed up.

I could care less that overbooking is a common thing. The society should not
be about protecting the profits of the companies, they should be promoting the
humanity and moving it further. This is a huge regression by allowing the
companies to have more power.

~~~
ambulancechaser
> He had a legitimate reason not to give up his seat

This is true until an officer of the law asked him to get off the plane.
Argument time happens before that, and after that in court. But at that point,
you're being ordered off a plane by a law enforcement officer. When you don't
comply there's only one way for it to proceed at that point.

> The airline CANNOT act like the computer is right all the time

It was the police officers who were right when they ordered the man off the
plane.

~~~
mikhailt
The airline called the cops to enforce its rights; the cops could've ordered
everyone off the plane to de-escalate the situation peacefully, which
should've be done in the first place due to the space constraint in there
causing safety concerns. What if the guy wanted to fight? Other customers
could've gotten hurt. I've been in that situation before the cops ordered
everyone to disperse first.

They could've listen and ask if anyone else would be willing to give up their
seat for the doctor.

There are many options and based on the videos and what the other passengers
said, the airline nor the cops gone through all of them before escalating the
situation like this.

Sorry, the cops were in the wrong as well. They may have all the laws on their
side I'm sure but if we treat cops as right all the time, we normalize their
behaviors as acceptable as well.

------
pascalxus
I'm sure they could have avoided this whole situation by offering the first 4
persons of the airplane, a 1000$ CASH. Instead, their policy is to risk
incidents like this, for one simple reason: because they can.

This is what happens when you get monopolies. Come on people, I thought we
learned from the ISP monopolies already. Whenever you have limited or No
choice: like monopolies, no good can come from it. I'm not surprised by this
at all. And, I wouldn't be surprised if we see large increases in air fares
above inflation, in coming years, as airlines consolidate their monopolistic
powers. It won't be too long untill they're competing with Comcast and At&t
for worst customer service.

------
goatherders
I love how they say he was advised that he was "denied boarding." Here's a
tip: If I'm in a seat, you've already let me board. And if you planned poorly
then that isn't my problem.

Unlike any other industry of which I am aware, airlines are unbelievably
skilled at making their problems their customers problems and then not
apologizing for it.

~~~
valuearb
10,000 flights a day, 365 days a year, sometimes the most improbable things
happen.

And once you are in your seat, doesn't mean you can't be asked to leave.

[http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-
county/201...](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-
county/2017/02/06/detroit-metro-passenger-taken-plane/97552370/)

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

~~~
valuearb
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.

~~~
lightbyte
>Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights.

That's false. They overbook because it makes them more money and for some
reason people just accept it. Pretty much no other industry could get away
with doing that to its customers.

Imagine the shit storm that would have unveiled if some random movie theatre
sold 110% of its seats for the midnight premier of Star Wars VII and
subsequently physically removed people from their seats because their
employees also wanted to see the movie and they sold too many tickets.

~~~
devonharvey
Hotels do this all the time. They book over 100% occupancy and usually someone
cancels at the last minute and there's no problem. If everyone shows up they
bump one of the people on the lowest rate. They give them a room at a
comparable hotel nearby and some sort of other compensation. Most price-
sensitive guests are okay with this trade because they're getting something
for free.

They​ don't have fiascos like this because​ they aren't foolish enough to let
them into the room before removing them. Unsurprisingly, kicking a guest out
of a room/plane has a much higher risk of escalation than not letting them in.

------
hedora
Ignoring the physical assault, this sounds about par for United customer
support...

I've been avoiding United for years, but a few years ago, a few friends wanted
to be picked up at the airport after United flights. Over 50% of them bought
tickets for flights that didn't exist, and were instead consolidated onto
other, later, flights.

Airlines should have to pay large multiples of ticket prices (in cash) to
passengers that encounter a schedule change or overbooking. As the
overbookings increase, the refunds should grow exponentially. (2x if 0.1% are
bumped, 4x if 0.2, then 8x, 16x, etc).

If they didn't change their behavior, United would have to pay out its market
cap in a matter of days, which is exactly what they deserve for systematically
abusing customers for at least a decade.

~~~
tyingq
Jimmy Kimmel pointed out the main reason why they get away with this.

 _“The next time we book a flight, it doesn’t matter if it’s United or Delta
or American, if one of those flights is a dollar less than the other one,
that’s the one we’ll pick. They know this. That’s why we’re stuck with them.”_

I don't understand the dynamics of how it ended up this way. Air travel used
to be a luxury, and had fairly high margins. The race to the bottom has
inspired a lot of terrible practice...unbundling things like "baggage fees",
pushing load factors beyond what's reasonable, increasingly smaller seats,
etc.

~~~
MandieD
One word: deregulation.

It's been a very sharp double-edged sword: on the one hand, it gave us
effective competitors like Southwest and jetBlue forcing the "legacy" carriers
to compete on price and routes, enabling far more people to be able to fly. On
the other, it caused the legacy carriers compete on price, not service (the
only thing they could really compete on before deregulation).

Personally, I fly Southwest and jetBlue when I'm in the US, but to get there,
I end up on Delta/KLM/Air France. The prices are usually around what the
legacy carriers are, but they have pretty much maintained the level of service
they started with (Southwest famously never had meal service, only packets of
peanuts). I think because they never got into the habit of cutting back a
little bit each year, they haven't gotten into the same downward spiral the
legacy carriers seem to have.

~~~
smitherfield
Deregulation is the reason the middle class can afford to fly at all. Pre-
deregulation, a Boston-LA flight would be $500 in 1978 dollars.

~~~
jehoshaphat
Yeah, but pre-deregulation there were plenty of seats for employees and
dependents to fly and airlines were making money. Airlines didn't have to have
police with rubber hoses beat randomly selected passengers until they could be
dragged off the plane. Source: dad was a middle-class airline employee during
this period. I flew on his pass. Could not wear tights, though. I am currently
a middle-class schmuck. Don't fly because I'd rather stab myself in the
eye..and, oh, can't afford to.

------
protomyth
Can someone explain how this was an "oversales" situation since the plane was
actually fully booked and not over sold, and with that how United's action
didn't violate the law.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250)

[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageI...](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=CFR-2001-title14-vol4&granuleId=CFR-2001-title14-vol4-sec250-2a&collectionCode=CFR&browsePath=Title+14%2FChapter+II%2FSubchapter+A%2FPart+250%2FSection+250.2a&collapse=true&fromBrowse=true)

~~~
devy
It simply wasn't - until United's crew members came on board. And United put
prioritize employees over its boarded customers (if there are going to bump
passengers out, they should never issue boarding pass in the first place).

~~~
protomyth
Reading the law, it seems very much like prioritizing employees over
passengers is actually illegal.

~~~
true_religion
I don't actually think so. Prioritising employees may very well be essential
to the continued or optimal operation of your airline.

For example, getting person A to a city so they can crew in place of a sick
employee, where otherwise we would have a plane with no pilot.

~~~
protomyth
> Prioritising employees may very well be essential to the continued or
> optimal operation of your airline

But that doesn't seem to be legal. It wasn't an oversold flight and the rule
is "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."

The airline didn't do that because ensuring the "smallest practicable number
of persons holding confirmed reserved space" would mean the non-flight
employees get bumped not the passengers.

~~~
true_religion
Their claim is that rules for what happens to passengers in the case of an
oversold flight shouldn't apply, because this flight wasn't oversold and
incorrectly boarded.

Instead, employees never count towards overselling in the flight, but if their
aren't enough employee-only seats, they'll take a customer seat instead.

Regardless, this is all a civil matter, and in civil matters you do not have
the right to physically fight with staff or the police because you aren't
getting your way. Instead, you go to court.

------
dmoy
Relevant info: [https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-
rights](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights)

Short version: if bumped, you're legally entitled to a cash payout equal to 2x
fare cost.

~~~
phonon
4x up to $1350 if the delay is more than 4 hours, actually.

------
jbmorgado
I seriously can't understand what kind of mental gymnastics this airline
management is doing in order to justify in their heads that this is just fine.

Even if the law is on their side, they still overbooked the plane by
themselves, they still let everyone check in, they still let everyone in
onboard and they still forcibly removed some random paying passenger just
because someone on their staff wanted/needed (anyone can clarify this part?)
to board.

Here is an idea for United (your HR department can contact me, I'm available
to hire for 50% of your CEO and I easily come up with much better ideas):

1 - you just have to simply get the attention of the passengers on the plane
(if you can be a bit smart and do it OUTSIDE the plane it's even better).

2- keep increasing the compensation you give one (or the needed) of them in
order for them to catch a later flight.

Sooner or later someone would just accept the compensation. Also, that
compensation wouldn't be anything special anyway since you have a plane full
of people competing for it. The passenger would be happy, United would get
what it wanted and you wouldn't have this media shitstorm in your hands.

Yes... it's really _that_ simple United (again, tell your HR department I'm
available for hire).

~~~
valuearb
They should have increased compensation. I'm wondering if they have a company
limit of $800.

The reason this happened is they had another crew that missed their flight and
needed to get to Lousville in time or another plane load of passengers would
be stuck on the tarmac.

~~~
jehoshaphat
I've read somewhere (can't find the link now) that the subject aircrew was
from an associate airline (United Express--different operator than United who
also operates regional jets for American and others, so not even technically
their own employee. Other plane would not have been stuck on the tarmac. The
crew had to get to Louisville that night to meet crew rest requirements. So
that flight could have been cancelled/delayed hours in advance if no crew was
available to fly it. The owners of that crew had other methods available to
get that crew to Louisville, UA did not have to accommodate them on a fully
booked flight, and in fact could not legally do so. I personally think there
must have been some hanky-panky going on between members of the two flight
crews. I can't think of any other reason UA would bend over backwards to fuck
this up so badly.

------
mvdwoord
I feel the current system of overbooking and how it is "regulated" is
backwards, and airlines should rethink. Perhaps they could do some sort of an
auction without a maximum. It is their problem after all, and a market
mechanism seems a reasonable way to deal with this. Sometimes this would mean
someone who does not care as much will gladly take $150 as compensation. Other
cases might lead to much higher numbers.

The next bit will probably not make me particularly popular, seeing most of
the reactions to this debacle, but here goes.

The airplane itself is not a suitable place for any form of protest. No ifs,
buts or anything else.

Once the flight personnel asks you to leave the airplane, you leave. Take the
fight outside of the airplane, in court or wherever or however you deem
appropriate. But not on the plane. Your work/patients/personal tragedy is in
no way relevant. If you disagree with the service offered, don't use it. Vote
with your feet and your wallet. Don't claim you have no alternatives or
whatever. Society does not owe you your preferred lifestyle in any way.

If this guy refused to leave after he was asked to do so, according to the
rules het agreed by upon entering an agreement, and I would be delayed by the
ensuing situation, I would even consider pursuing some form of legal action
towards him.

Having said all that, I do feel the way commercial air travel is organised
these days is beyond ridiculous. I therefore avoid it whenever and however I
can. If more people did that, it would have changed by now. People don't, so
it doesn't. Because most just feel entitled to whatever they feel entitled to,
without any basis. Fuck them.

Oh, and screw airlines too.

~~~
tsunamifury
The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over
your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the
incident) lead to abuse for profit.

There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate
reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a
passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending
their staff on another flight.

This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their
monetary needs.

Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly
unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary
force.

~~~
valuearb
The plane couldn't leave until this person left. So there was a plane full of
people who couldn't leave because of this jerk.

And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as
well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out.
Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest.

It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from
the overbooking system. We also benefit from having our flights not be
canceled when the air crew isn't able to show up on time.

~~~
tsunamifury
The plane absolutely could have left, entirely full of ticketed passengers.
United held the plane to force this scenario -- since they wanted to replace
ticketed paid passengers with their own staff to fly for free.

~~~
_fizz_buzz_
A pilot will not leave if they have a passenger on board who refuses to follow
instructions by the crew. If you feel like you are treated unjustly (which
might very well be the case here), take the fight off the plane.

~~~
tsunamifury
Really? Would a plane not leave if the crew requested you remove your clothes
and fly naked? Would it not leave if they forced you to fight another
passenger?

There was no safety issue, and the crew only has power over you in the event
of an issue of safety. There was no such issue.

------
arkis22
Rough. I can see where he's coming from though. This was a private email to
employees, and in that context he definitely needs to be a cheerleader for
them.

Overbookings are industry standard, and they called security for someone who
wouldn't leave. "Correct" protocol.

I think what most likely happened is the security guard that has been placed
on leave did his job very poorly. As soon as he hit the passenger his
coworkers probably thought "Uh oh. We need to just get him out of here before
this gets worse. Because this is not what's supposed to happen."

It's obvious to us though that calling security is a way to make ALL your
customers unhappy, and should be avoided at whatever cost. They should have
just kept raising their offer for passenger's seats, that would be the better
protocol.

~~~
openmosix
If you are the CEO of a public company, you know anything you write at
all@<your_company> is, most likely, public record.

"They were just following protocol" is the new "Befehl ist Befehl" \- also
known as Nurember defense
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders)

The fact that a defenceless man has left a plane covered in blood should give
everyone pause. They followed orders is a very poor response.

~~~
arkis22
My comment was not meant to suggest that what happened was right.

My comment was meant to suggest that anger at the CEO for supporting his
employees, who only called security, and didn't beat the guy up themselves, is
misplaced. UA screwed up, but the email wasn't what went wrong.

The UA employees followed protocol by calling security. Protocols are
generally in place for a reason, and they can be reworked. I don't think
comparing overbooking to German soldiers entering a plea against war crimes is
a good analogy.

~~~
openmosix
We can argue what "be a cheerleader for them[employees]" means. If I were a
United employee, I'd not be impressed by my employer. I'd feel ashamed of
being part of an organization that has managed to escalate a logistical
problem (because that's what we are talking about) into violence. I'd like to
be proud of my employer and, today, I'd not feel great knowing my company is
ok with beating up a harmless man. I'd seriously question the ethics and core
value of my employer. As an employee, I'd like to know that /something/ went
wrong in that situation - and we do not stand for violence. Frankly, that
would cheer me up.

As comparing overbooking to German soldiers - the Nuremberg defense, despite
originated from Nazi's trial, refers today to any account where "I was just
following orders". It refers to /any/ situation where someone claims
unaccountability because "it is the protocol". This is exactly the case. If
the protocol accounts for beating up a passenger, are the employees
unaccountable just because "that's what the manual says"? No, they are not.
They are human beings and they could say "fuck the protocol". There are a
million other ways to handle a logistical problem without the use of violence.

~~~
arkis22
Ironic. I agree with your sentiment but find the opposite conclusion.

If I were a United employee I would also not be impressed. UA is now instantly
associated with violence.

You want to know that something went wrong and that UA doesn't stand for
violence, as most other employees would.

But that's what the letter's saying...

He says it right here:

He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance
to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more
disruptive and belligerent. Our agents were left with no choice but to call
Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the
flight. He repeatedly declined to leave. Chicago Aviation Security Officers
were unable to gain his co-operation and physically removed him from the
flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance
of both our crew and security officials.

It's very clear to me that UA did not condone or suggest the violence against
the passenger. The CEO's description of the events makes it clear to employees
that this situation escalated out of control after they passed it off to
security.

Just because you can apply it doesn't mean you should. You really need to
define what protocol they have that you hate so much. The guard that attacked
the passenger was placed on leave. Suggesting the violence wasn't protocol.

------
danso
While I'm sure it's possible an employee forwarded this email without official
authorization, it is unlikely this email was written without the expectation
that it would eventually make its way into the press. IOW, it's been written
with the public as its ultimate audience, I wouldn't assume that it has
anything that the CEO didn't want the world to know.

------
cmurf
As it turns out the explanations are completely false, as in, not based on
facts:

a. It wasn't overbooked. It was apparently exactly 100% booked and filled.
Four paying customers were replaced by four non-paying crew. That is not an
overbook situation, so United's entire rule 25 in the contract of carriage
doesn't apply.

b. The removed customer didn't violate a single listed reason under rule 21 of
the contract of carriage. Where else in the contract is passenger removal
permitted?

c. Even if it were an overbooking, the airline's contract only says boarding
can be denied. It doesn't say anything about rescinding an authorization to
board, i.e. changing their mind.

What's going on here, are unwritten rules that they just made up out of thin
air, convinced the police they exist, and got the police to do their dirty
work. That rule is "upon refusal to comply with a polite request, the airline
will petition an ignorant police force to (violently) remove the passenger
from the plane."

This perverted, uncivilized, unwritten rule needs to be challenged. I hope
this passenger takes them to court without settling. It needs to become part
of the public record. If he settles, the details will get buried behind a non-
disclosure agreement, and we won't actually learn that it's the airline who
violated their own contract of carriage, and the police almost certainly broke
the law not just their policies, in physically removing this person from the
plane.

And unfortunately most of the media has spread false information by saying
that the airline can have a person thrown off a plane for pretty much any
reason, which is only true if you agree. If you look at the written contract,
removal in this case is not supportable, even with a very vivid imagination.

------
wnevets
I just wish people would stop repeating that this was an overbooking issue, it
wasn't. Customers were being forced off the plane to allow employees on after
the fact. That has nothing to do with overbooking.

~~~
valuearb
Doesn't matter. Airline can remove anyone they want from a flight for any
reason. They had to get another air crew to louisville or another flight would
be stuck on the tarmac full of passengers.

~~~
wnevets
It absolutely matters. One is an incorrect statement and the other isn't.

------
cm2187
Overbooking is an indefensible practice. You sell a service that you knowingly
have no intention to provide to people who base their travel plans on that
expectation. This is like playing Russian roulette with your customers. No
sympathy for United.

~~~
protomyth
How is this an over sold (overbook) situation? The flight was not overbooked.
It was United that added employees that shouldn't have and I'm more and more
convinced they did it illegally.

------
SteveNuts
Airlines are the worst.

~~~
tdb7893
What most people (and the news) don't seem to realise is that airlines are the
worst because of market forces. There is very little brand loyalty in general
for airlines so small changes in prices have a large difference and they've
found the there just isn't a large market for a better airline with
significantly higher cost.

~~~
DamnYuppie
For recreational travelers I am inclined to agree with you. Yet for business
travels, which are the backbone of most airlines, they are very brand loyal.
They will contort their schedule and deaden their pain threshold to no ends to
fly their preferred airline. Also price isn't a key driving decision for them,
if one airline is $100 less on a given flight but the more expensive flight is
still "in policy" they will go with the more expense flight on their preferred
carrier.

I am a weekly business travel as are all my peers so this is purely my
observations from 15+ years of frequent business travel.

~~~
tdb7893
That's true and it would be interesting to see an airline catering more to
them but that's not the case for the majority of consumers and it would be
unlikely that an airline could fill a plane if a seat cost much more. The
trend in airlines currently is actually providing cheaper and less services

------
ensiferum
Seriously, next time this happens how about raising the compensation for
someone willing to take the later flight.

The Aircrew could announce on the PA that "we're very sorry that the fligth
will be be delayed but we're overbooked and still looking for X ppl willing to
take the next flight. We're offering a X $ compensation for your trouble."

Then you just increase X until you will find people willing to take the deal.

Idiots.

~~~
valuearb
They went up to $800 and got no takers. $800 is what United has to pay for
involuntarily bumping someone. So clearly United company policy is to not pay
anything above that (other airlines will). This is what bit them in the ass
here.

------
bambax
United used to only break guitars

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars)

Now they break passengers, too.

------
dbg31415
This whole situation reads like a playbook for how to have to resign from a
CEO position.

~~~
devy
Or the UAL's board should remove and "re-accommodate" somewhere outside of
UAL's leadership team.

------
typetypetype
It's time to finally have an air passenger bill of rights as law!

------
tuna-piano
How to fix this problem:

1\. Hand out prefilled in vouchers/checks to all the passengers with the
amount filled in, which become valid when redeemed at the counter. There's an
irrational human thing that people hate losing something they have more than
they like gaining something[1], so helping to feel like they are losing the
$800 voucher by not redeeming it would be more beneficial. I imagine that
having the (fake) voucher/check in their hand would increase voluntary rates
by a lot (and lower the compensation the airlines would need to pay), while
only increasing some paper printing costs.

\--- Other ideas \---

1b. Add in language during ticket purchase saying "To keep prices low, bla bla
bla, 1 in 20,000 passengers may be unable to fly. Purchase protection from
this event for $1". The passengers that don't purchase that protection would
then be eligible for denied boarding, but at least they had more of a choice.
Although, it still feels like "guaranteed seat" should just be included by
default when you purchase a ticket (as I type this, it feels insane that
"guaranteed seat" would be an upsell... but that seems to be the case).

1c. Offer more in compensation to passengers (obvious). This is not like
eminent domain, where you need 100% of people in a given area to agree to
something. You only need 4/100 passengers to agree to something, it truly can
work like an auction.

\--- Other thoughts \---

1\. Everyone is blaming United for this event, but is there a different US
airline who this event couldn't have happened to? They all have involuntary
boardings, and presumably if you choose not to go peacefully, the airline will
involve law enforcement. The only reason people leave peacefully when they
don't want to is because they know the airline has the ultimate physical
control.

2\. Jimmy Kimmel mentioned it, but you just cannot imagine this happening in
any other industry. Being kicked out of a restaurant table after being seated,
being kicked out of a hotel room just checked into, etc.

3\. The management of United seems completely out of touch with sentiment and
reality, given their statements. Using the word "re-accomodate" in a three
sentence statement seems like a symptom of a larger problem... it should have
been obvious how people would react to that. I believe they are so deep into
their philosophy of "this is how the industry works" that they have lost sense
of the bigger customer picture. It's really as simple as: He bought a
confirmed ticket with real money->boarded the plane->told ticket is no longer
valid and kicked off. No amount of industry financial rationalization will
change that.

4\. This is still a rare issue, only about 1 in 15,000 flyers in the US is
involuntarily denied boarding[2]. That said, United has 5x the rate as Delta,
so this problem is not inherently terrible everywhere in the industry. Worth
noting that this flight was operated by Republic, not United.

\--Citations--

[1] [https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-buyers-and-sellers-inherently-
di...](https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-buyers-and-sellers-inherently-disagree-on-
what-things-are-worth)

[2][http://6331-presscdn-0-25.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/u...](http://6331-presscdn-0-25.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016_12_26-B6DBs.jpg)

------
benji-york
I honestly don't understand the outrage. A person was legally required to do
something he didn't want to do, he refused to relent and escalated the
situation. The passenger is the only person I see as having done anything
wrong here.

I don't claim that there aren't better ways to handle the situation, but I
also don't see any wrongdoing in how this shook out.

~~~
josho
> A person was legally required…

The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for
minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc.

A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that
he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal?
Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are
you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some
sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a
room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws
correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?

~~~
true_religion
> Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is
> some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee
> needs a room?

Yes.

Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement
and exercised it to allow _me_ to move back home when I really needed it.

It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is
part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation
where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is....
awkward.

People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to
move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.

------
_wmd
I think the video of this incident is frankly disgusting, but it's not clear
without more context why the situation escalated to the degree it did. For
example, UA fly another plane 3 hours 20 minutes later to the same destination
(which is to say, a very reasonable and perfectly expectable delay in any
situation involving air travel), why did the doc need to be on exactly that
plane, and why did the UA staff also have to be on exactly that plane?

One point in favour of UA though, is that they're perfectly within their right
to deny boarding for any reason whatsoever. Yes, it's completely a dick move
on their part, but just because they're acting like dicks does not give a
passenger the right to refuse disembarkation, it's not his aircraft.

FWIW I 100% think the passenger was mistreated regardless, just saying there
aren't enough facts to pass judgement so easily

~~~
Oletros
He was a Dr. going to work

~~~
valuearb
He is allegedly a doctor, not a demigod. Someone else can cover his shift.

~~~
katbyte
If i have an appointment to see a specialist that i've been waiting months
for, another doctor can't just 'cover his shift'

