Man Dragged off United Flight

[JOEFRIDAY2]

Im sorry, but this whole statement is objectively incorrect. You are wrong if you think this happens only to United. I know this situation is awful, and is not right,

I have personally witnessed Delta remove a young lady from her seat on a December 23rd flight, her flight home for Christmas. It sucks, but it's a part of this complex business.

I would also point out that JetBlue has one of the higher IDB rates per 10K pax in the industry - and they do not overbook. Clearly solving this is not as simple as prohibiting overselling.

Where have I said that airlines should not overbook or oversell?

Can you should me another instance of an airline ripping a customer out of their seat when they were doing nothing wrong?

 

[Ecl!pse]

Where have I said that airlines should not overbook or oversell?

Can you should me another instance of an airline ripping a customer out of their seat when they were doing nothing wrong?

Apologies, the last bit on overselling was a generic "this isn't a simple solution" statement to the general thread, not directed at you or your quote. That was unclear on my part.

I do not have another personal anecdote for in-seat IDB's, only word-of-mouth stories from industry colleagues. The young lady on my Delta flight got off peacefully (albeit very upset, in tears) when her in-seat IDB occurred. The other passengers on this flight also seemingly got off the aircraft peacefully, though I'm sure upset/annoyed by the situation (rightfully so).

 

[jtrain609]

Where have I said that airlines should not overbook or oversell?

Can you should me another instance of an airline ripping a customer out of their seat when they were doing nothing wrong?

If you end up being weight restricted, you won't have final performance numbers until just prior to push, or sometime on taxi.

Whether an airline removes bags or people is up to them, but either solution fixes the problem, and there's no way around Sir Issac.

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

Everyday, in this country, passengers are bumped off flights for one reason or another. Could be oversold. Could be substitution of smaller equipment. Could be weight and balance. Could be a delay that caused issues on subsequent flights. So it's going to happen even if an airline doesn't overbook or oversell.

I haven't taken a survey, but the passengers that I have seen volunteering to give up their seats are extremely pleased with the payout and goodies the airline gives them. Some even think they hit the jackpot.

Obviously most airlines have figured out how to handle this to make everyone feel like a winner.

 

[trafficinsight]

Where have I said that airlines should not overbook or oversell?

Can you should me another instance of an airline ripping a customer out of their seat when they were doing nothing wrong?

Wasn't there a video like 3 weeks ago of Southwest doing the same thing basically?

 

[Ecl!pse]

Everyday, in this country, passengers are bumped off flights for one reason or another. Could be oversold. Could be substitution of smaller equipment. Could be weight and balance. Could be a delay that caused issues on subsequent flights. So it's going to happen even if an airline doesn't overbook or oversell.

I haven't taken a survey, but the passengers that I have seen volunteering to give up their seats are extremely pleased with the payout and goodies the airline gives them. Some even think they hit the jackpot.

Obviously most airlines have figured out how to handle this to make everyone feel like a winner.

I agree on all of the above - and would go so far as to say that in 99.9% of IDB's, United had it figured out as well. This one situation they messed up, for sure.

I am curious how other carriers would have handled this though - until Delta's recent change, most would have capped the offering at the lower of 400% of the ticket price or $1,350, which it sounds like no one on this flight would have taken. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that most airlines would not have offered more than the $1350, so the same situation could have very well unfolded. We'll never know though, as United was the canary in this coal mine.

 

[trafficinsight]

I agree on all of the above - and would go so far as to say that in 99.9% of IDB's, United had it figured out as well. This one situation they messed up, for sure.

I am curious how other carriers would have handled this though - until Delta's recent change, most would have capped the offering at the lower of 400% of the ticket price or $1,350, which it sounds like no one on this flight would have taken. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that most airlines would not have offered more than the $1350, so the same situation couldn't have very well unfolded. We'll never know though, as United was the canary in this coal mine.

I'm not sure it was wise of Delta to publicize it either...

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

The way the law is written, the amount paid to someone that is involuntarily bumped off of the plane is $1350.

However there is nothing that prohibits an airline from offering more money, tickets, meals, etc. to those that will volunteer before they (or other passengers) are involuntarily bumped.

So United could have offered $10,000 for a passenger to give up their seat and there is nothing, in the law, that prohibits it. Only company policy and culture would prohibit this.

The attorneys could argue United would rather involuntarily bump a passenger and pay out only $1350 rather than offer $10,000 a passenger for volunteers to give up their seat.

 

[srn121]

I am curious how other carriers would have handled this though - until Delta's recent change, most would have capped the offering at the lower of 400% of the ticket price or $1,350, which it sounds like no one on this flight would have taken. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that most airlines would not have offered more than the $1350, so the same situation could have very well unfolded. We'll never know though, as United was the canary in this coal mine.

The company only claims they offered $1000 in compensation and the witnesses interviewed claimed they were only ever offered $800 in vouchers to volunteer. There's a big difference in $1350 cash and $800 and even $1000 in United vouchers which aren't much better than coupons. $1350 in cash would get me off of pretty much any flight I'm flying even if I can't fly out for 24 hours later, especially in a situation when I could easily grab a one way rental if I had to be home sooner.

 

[Ecl!pse]

The way the law is written, the amount paid to someone that is involuntarily bumped off of the plane is $1350.

However there is nothing that prohibits an airline from offering more money, tickets, meals, etc. to those that will volunteer before they (or other passengers) are involuntarily bumped.

So United could have offered $10,000 for a passenger to give up their seat and there is nothing, in the law, that prohibits it. Only company policy and culture would prohibit this.

The attorneys could argue United would rather involuntarily bump a passenger and pay out only $1350 rather than offer $10,000 a passenger for volunteers to give up their seat.

The company only claims they offered $1000 in compensation and the witnesses interviewed claimed they were only ever offered $800 in vouchers to volunteer. There's a big difference in $1350 cash and $800 and even $1000 in United vouchers which aren't much better than coupons. $1350 in cash would get me off of pretty much any flight I'm flying even if I can't fly out for 24 hours later, especially in a situation when I could easily grab a one way rental if I had to be home sooner.

I agree that they could have offered more, but in how many instances would every airline actually offer more? If Delta would always offer more than legally required, would there be a need to change the corporate policy? It would have already been standard practice/accepted anyways?

Have we also confirmed that the other 3 passengers did not receive their entitled compensation in cash? The airline offering lower amounts and vouchers while looking for volunteers is a far, far cry from what may have actually transpired once the removed passengers got back up to the gate. I have not yet seen anything that says the removed passengers didn't get their compensation, though I may have simply missed it.

 

[trafficinsight]

The company only claims they offered $1000 in compensation and the witnesses interviewed claimed they were only ever offered $800 in vouchers to volunteer. There's a big difference in $1350 cash and $800 and even $1000 in United vouchers which aren't much better than coupons. $1350 in cash would get me off of pretty much any flight I'm flying even if I can't fly out for 24 hours later, especially in a situation when I could easily grab a one way rental if I had to be home sooner.

Also I think it's funny when people think travel vouchers are useless. I made excellent use of SWA travel bux anytime I had them, they would do price of the ticket + 400. I did all my traveling for a whole year once on vouchers.

 

[srn121]

Also I think it's funny when people think travel vouchers are useless. I made excellent use of SWA travel bux anytime I had them, they would do price of the ticket + 400. I did all my traveling for a whole year once on vouchers.

Not all airlines are alike and I was pleased with my Southwest voucher as it covered anything, but taxes. It wasn't great, but I didn't even ask for it when my bag was delayed. I'll post the link down below which shows you how bad the vouchers offered have become.

Andrew’s case illuminates the growing problem of ticket-credit deflation. Historically, airlines have preferred to issue credit instead of a cash refund. They’re also fairly generous when it comes to parceling out vouchers for future flights. The reason? Redemption rates on vouchers hover somewhere between 5 percent and 8 percent, so there’s little cost to the company.

I agree that they could have offered more, but in how many instances would every airline actually offer more? If Delta would always offer more than legally required, would there be a need to change the corporate policy? It would have already been standard practice/accepted anyways?

Have we also confirmed that the other 3 passengers did not receive their entitled compensation in cash? The airline offering lower amounts and vouchers while looking for volunteers is a far, far cry from what may have actually transpired once the removed passengers got back up to the gate. I have not yet seen anything that says the removed passengers didn't get their compensation, though I may have simply missed it.

They may have been offered the cash afterward, but it's still totally inept of them to have not offered it sooner and have defused the situation. Had they offered to do what the law required them to do I'm certain this 69 year old passenger wouldn't have needed reconstructive surgery. United's had a reputation for pushing people to their vouchers as outlined in this article from years ago.

That didn’t make sense to her. United promises a no-questions-asked refund on most tickets, as long as the request is made within a day of the reservation. And since 2011, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has required airline reservations to be cancelable without penalty for at least 24 hours after the booking is made, unless the ticket is purchased a week or less before a flight’s departure date.

Here's some of the terms on an American travel voucher from a bumped flight

A look at the restrictions on her voucher suggests the answer: What should you not look for? Her airline scrip can’t be used on the Internet, doesn’t allow any stopovers, can’t be combined with any other voucher and can’t be used to pay for a reservation that she has already made. If she finds a ticket for more than $800, she’ll have to pay the difference in cash, but if the flight costs less than $800, the airline keeps the balance, according to the terms.

http://www.seattletimes.com/life/tr...-take-that-airline-voucher-mdash-go-for-cash/

 

[Ecl!pse]

Not all airlines are alike and I was pleased with my Southwest voucher as it covered anything, but taxes. It wasn't great, but I didn't even ask for it when my bag was delayed. I'll post the link down below which shows you how bad the vouchers offered have become.





They may have been offered the cash afterward, but it's still totally inept of them to have not offered it sooner and have defused the situation. Had they offered to do what the law required them to do I'm certain this 69 year old passenger wouldn't have needed reconstructive surgery. United's had a reputation for pushing people to their vouchers as outlined in this article from years ago.



Here's some of the terms on an American travel voucher from a bumped flight




http://www.seattletimes.com/life/tr...-take-that-airline-voucher-mdash-go-for-cash/

The article is about a single-passenger's experience within United, but explicitly states that this is an industry problem - not a single company problem.

I disagree with the premise that not going directly to the capped amount means they are inept. Actually, I would go so far to say the opposite - automatically going to the cap seems inept - in most cases the auction process saves the company hundreds of dollars. The company should always seek volunteers before moving to the involuntary process.

I still have a lot of questions as to how this all transpired and what the sequence of events were - it concerns me a bit that so many on this site have seemingly found United guilty and solely responsible before all of the facts are sifted through in an investigation. As a community, we always preach patience and awaiting facts when the press writes articles on crashes, accidents, incidents, etc. This case is not simple - it was a complex chain of events where a series of missteps/mistakes culminated in the horrific scene and outcome for this passenger. United may very well come out 100% in the wrong on this - and should be held accountable as such if they are - but I personally feel it's a challenge to make that statement at this juncture.

 

[srn121]

I disagree with the premise that not going directly to the capped amount means they are inept. Actually, I would go so far to say the opposite - automatically going to the cap seems inept - in most cases the auction process saves the company hundreds of dollars. The company should always seek volunteers before moving to the involuntary process.

I'd argue that they should've offered it at some point before bashing the 69 year old guy so badly he needed reconstructive surgery, but then again I'm not one of these supergeniuses that works for United.

I'll accept that it's something of an industry wide problem with vouchers and compensation on bumped flights, but United is the worst of the non-lcc's in the terms on their vouchers. Southwest doesn't have an issue at all as they pay cash if needed and their vouchers are very flexible. Thankfully Delta's learned from this and is swooping in for some cheap marketing and goodwill at United's expense.

There's no doubt United's management is at fault. I'm sorry that so many United pilots are taking this personally, but this has nothing to do with them and I know some great pilots, much better than myself that fly for them.

 

[Ecl!pse]

I'd argue that they should've offered it at some point before bashing the 69 year old guy so badly he needed reconstructive surgery, but then again I'm not one of these supergeniuses that works for United.

I'll accept that it's something of an industry wide problem with vouchers and compensation on bumped flights, but United is the worst of the non-lcc's in the terms on their vouchers. Southwest doesn't have an issue at all as they pay cash if needed and their vouchers are very flexible. Thankfully Delta's learned from this and is swooping in for some cheap marketing and goodwill at United's expense.

There's no doubt United's management is at fault. I'm sorry that so many United pilots are taking this personally, but this has nothing to do with them and I know some great pilots, much better than myself that fly for them.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what happened here - can you help me answer these?

- At what point did they stop offering vouchers and move to the IDB process?
- What did the United employee actually say when they initiated the IDB?
- Was there any mention of the required comp prior to IDB notification? After? At what time?
- What happened after the 1st three passengers were removed? Did they receive their comp?
- How were the 1st three passengers removed? Why was Dr. Dao treated differently?
- What was the sequence of events when Dr. Dao refused to de-board?
- What is United's process for a passenger who refuses to de-board?
- Did they ever ask other passengers to de-board after Dr. Dao refused?
- How many attempts to work with Dr. Dao did they try before calling authorities?
- Did United notify Dr. Dao that authorities would be called if he did not de-board?
- What did the United employee tell the authorities about Dr. Dao?
- How did the authorities initially approach Dr. Dao?
- Was Dr. Dao given an opportunity to speak with police, or did they immediately resort to physically removing him?
- How are the authorities trained to remove someone that is not complicit?
- Why was Dr. Dao seemingly dragged through the seats, where he hit his head/face and was badly injured, as opposed to another means of removal?
- Why was he dragged through the cabin in the manner captured on video? Why was he not allowed to collect himself and be escorted out?
- What happened after he was removed from the aircraft? How did he re-board, and what occurred after that to re-remove him?


The answers to these, and so many other questions, would help me personally better understand what actually happened, outside of a 30-second iPhone film. Until there's clarity, I think each of the 3 parties is equally complicit in this awful outcome.

 

[srn121]

The answers to these, and so many other questions, would help me personally better understand what actually happened, outside of a 30-second iPhone film. Until there's clarity, I think each of the 3 parties is equally complicit in this awful outcome.

That's all well and good, but we've got multiple witnesses saying no further compensation was offered after the 800 dollar voucher was offered United's own spokespeople say following the incident they only offered 1000 in "compensation" . This is the reason United's so hated. Everyone's got them dead to rights in being largely if not entirely responsible for the outcome and United's corporate culture with their notorious contempt for their passengers and the general public are telling them "excuse us, but you're wrong and we know better". We've had numerous United affiliated posters come in here and try to attack the senior citizen who was bashed even after the fact. Many of these posters also claimed wrongly that this was no big deal and that it would all blow over. Contrast that with Delta who is offering even more under these circumstances and if all things are equal their will be even fewer people who will choose them instead of United the wonderful airline where bloodied seniors get " reaccomodated".

 

[Roger Roger]

Y'all business, PR, and customer service professionals got this figured out yet or naw?

 

[zmiller4]

If you end up being weight restricted, you won't have final performance numbers until just prior to push, or sometime on taxi.

Whether an airline removes bags or people is up to them, but either solution fixes the problem, and there's no way around Sir Issac.

This is the example I give to people who think removing passengers involuntarily is *never* permissible, and none have an answer for it other than "offer more and more until someone takes it".

An aside--in the mini CRJ, removing bags alone is often not an option because of crappy CG's.

 

[Richman]

I suspect what will happen is that flights will simply cancel, de-planed, and extra-sections operated.

Maybe you can't pull one person off, but you can certainly pull everyone off.

It will be a lot of time and hassle, but probably better than all the other bad alternatives.

 

[Ecl!pse]

That's all well and good, but we've got multiple witnesses saying no further compensation was offered after the 800 dollar voucher was offered United's own spokespeople say following the incident they only offered 1000 in "compensation" . This is the reason United's so hated. Everyone's got them dead to rights in being largely if not entirely responsible for the outcome and United's corporate culture with their notorious contempt for their passengers and the general public are telling them "excuse us, but you're wrong and we know better". We've had numerous United affiliated posters come in here and try to attack the senior citizen who was bashed even after the fact. Many of these posters also claimed wrongly that this was no big deal and that it would all blow over. Contrast that with Delta who is offering even more under these circumstances and if all things are equal their will be even fewer people who will choose them instead of United the wonderful airline where bloodied seniors get " reaccomodated".

That too is all well and good, but after the $1000 offer the airline chose to move to the IDB process, where they have to compensate the removed passenger 400% of their ticket price or $1350. So once they stopped seeking volunteers and started the IDB process, the previous "offers" are irrelevant. There were no takers, so UAL felt it necessary to go to IDB. Nobody has yet confirmed if the 1st three customers received their compensation, as Dr. Dao also would have been entitled to.

Nobody has also answered why this escalated to the manner of force that it did? It was clearly excessive, but why on earth didn't 1) the authorities use less forceful measures, and 2) Dr. Dao get off the aircraft when asked by authorities (if asked)?

It seems there were so many opportunities for all 3 parties to prevent this, starting first and foremost with UAL. But that's not to say both the police and Dr. Dao couldn't have prevented this, like the other 3 passengers did.

I'm not sure about the last part of your quote - is this a regular occurrence where "bloodied seniors get re-accommodated"? Or is this a bit of sensationalism after an awful, one-off incident?