Airline seats (or not, as the case might be)

All legal apparently. Once you disobey the pilot's  order you're in the wrong. Doesn't excuse the events that unfolded perhaps but thems the rules, though those rules don't seem to account for those who are ill and this chap on United flight does not seem well.

I was reading today that some airline travel in US has become comparable to some rail travel in the UK, with lack of care and good service together with terrible inefficiencies being the norm and simply expected. I guess some of our US members would know more.

Yes Jamie. I'm also assuming the Captain, either directly or indirectly ordered the passenger to leave. When the passenger refused, the Captain presumably called for assistance and at that point things turned ugly.

I gather that one of the security men involved has been suspended from duty. Doesn't look too good for United nor the Airport security outfit.

Certainly worth thinking through, in advance, what your negotiating tactics will be if you ever get asked to take a later flight.

Rules is Rules, I suppose, but as a frequent flyer, I'd expect the situation to have been sorted out, preferably at check in, or at the latest, whilst waiting in the departure lounge.

I'd certainly be less than chuffed, having settled in my seat for the flight, to be asked / ordered to leave the plane at that late stage, particularly as you want my paid for seat, in order to shuffle staff around!

Not to mention the resultant flight delay for everyone else, as my check in bags are removed from the hold.

Own up United, you cocked up, and to think that by applying, in your press release, the term "disruptive", as described by Don above, to the passenger concerned, doesn't do you any favours.

Whatever the situation re seat entitlement & the shameful event this week with United & getting back to the question.  I used to travel a hell of a lot & the overbooking seat problems as we've seen this week was something I only found in USA (mostly).   I admit most of my travel was business (& first) so I was less affected than most.   I would volunteer to change flight if I could & if the $$$ was cash & the deal included a hotel (if needed) and/or upgrade.    Two stories worth telling:   I moved to a 'next day' Dubai/Jo'Burg +cash & upgrade to 1st & then spent 2 extra nights in a top hotel on the beach before they finally got their act together.     A US deep winter weather disruption caused me to volunteer 'off' a flight Boston/London to take the later one that night (cash & upgrade).  The original 'plane had a technical & my new flight took off before it,  then with a jet stream blowing a hoolie on the way to London I arrived home 1 hour later than the original plan.  

dave marshall posted:

Rules is Rules

But you can never ever treat a human like that, let alone he is a customer.

It's only a matter of time before somebody turns up here and blames Trump.

Ray

These rules have been in place for a very long time AFAIK. As a case in point, my father-in-law was once ordered to give up his seat to a crew member in all places Nome, Alaska, circa late-1970s. He resisted vehemently as he told the story, and probably fortunate for him he was at a tiny airport in a bygone era of air travel. Had he acted in such a manner today (post-911) he'd have subjected himself to a mess with authorities.

I've been a passenger in enough types of aircraft (and watercraft for that matter) to know that the captain is the ultimate authority and when he or she gives an order you must comply.

I don't know all the details of the current case, but typically airlines will announce the overbooking on the plane and first ask for volunteers to give up their seats before invoking the absolute alternative. Removed passengers are compensated with a voucher for double their airfare, albeit the value of a voucher is marginal depending on the immediate needs of the traveler to reach their destination. Presumably, single travelers are targeted as opposed to couples or families.

I was on an overbooked flight from Toulouse once. They only seemed to figure out there wasn't enough room when people were stood on the plane realising there were no empty seats for them to sit on. It was sorted with no fuss, the only doubt was if our bags were with us or not as they removed a number of bags from the plane rather than those specifically belonging to the people not on the flight. 

Interesting thing is (at least in US air travel), depending on how early you arrive at the airport and your destination, your baggage may not even be on the same flight as you. I've had my bags arrive hours before me on delayed flights. Then you have to go to the airline's concierge to claim your baggage. It's a complex system.

My daughter did a fair amount of travelling in Europe and the Middle East during her college years and to my surprise she found the security there relatively lax compared to the US. Much cheaper for inter-Euro flights as well. The US has built quite a security infrastructure around air travel post-911. It's a cattle in the market place venture. Arrive early and expect long lines. Typically, every seat is filled. On-time claims by the airlines are met by a large buffering of actual travel times which often results in time spent queued on the tarmac rather than in the air. Estimates have up to 700,000 travelers in the air at any given moment. It's a complex system, yet still a pretty safe way to travel.

Perhaps time for the rules to be reviewed?

This was a humungous cock up by United and their security personnel.  The payload and passenger numbers should have been sorted out pre-boarding.  Kicking passengers off after they have been invited to board the aircraft to suit airline staff is plain wrong.  Volunteers should be sought, not martial rule imposed on passengers!!  I can't imagine what they were thinking of.

I used to travel very often around the Caribbean, my most irritating experience being a flight from San Juan to Tortola.  I was based on another island and my tickets and boarding pass were issued to me a week or two before this connecting flight. My colleagues who had flown out from UK were only issued their boarding passes at San Juan.  As I went to leave the departure lounge I was informed that I would not be travelling.  My logic was that my colleagues had been permitted to jump the queue and I was not having it.  There followed a rather heated debate (a skill learned from travelling American Airlines...) which became slightly strange when the passengers waiting for another flight joined in and added vocal support to my case.   I don't know how I got away with it (today I would probably have been shot!!) but American conceded to my requests and the plane was halted approaching the runway, I was taken out by bus and received a huge cheer from the passengers.  That was back in the 1990's and clearly would just not happen today!!

Peter

dave marshall posted:

 

I'd certainly be less than chuffed, having settled in my seat for the flight, to be asked / ordered to leave the plane at that late stage, particularly as you want my paid for seat, in order to shuffle staff around!

Not to mention the resultant flight delay for everyone else, as my check in bags are removed from the hold.

I haven’t heard an explanation as to how they choose who gets thrown off, but it would make sense not to eject somebody with checked in hold luggage. It would make things a lot easier and quicker.

fatcat posted:

dave marshall posted:

 

I'd certainly be less than chuffed, having settled in my seat for the flight, to be asked / ordered to leave the plane at that late stage, particularly as you want my paid for seat, in order to shuffle staff around!

Not to mention the resultant flight delay for everyone else, as my check in bags are removed from the hold.

I haven’t heard an explanation as to how they choose who gets thrown off, but it would make sense not to eject somebody with checked in hold luggage. It would make things a lot easier and quicker.

Fatcat

How they choose varys by airline, or so they say, but for United some of the considerations are as follows:

1. Are you on a discount ticket?-off plane

2. Are you on their frequent flyer list?-stay on plane

3. Are you accompanying a child?-stay on plane

4. Are you part of a family group?-stay on plane

5. Are there later flights to your desired destination?-off plane

Rules are rules?  I am a law and order person but when I read these things and then see people jump to some bizzare conclusions it makes me cringe.  Where has common sense gone to in this world?   A flawed rule is almost worse than no rule at all.

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong but my interpretation of the view that what the captain says goes is great and necessary.  However, I would think that this really applies specifically to troublemakers and passengers who are causing a commotion or pose a threat or a danger of some sort.  The captain then needs this support to do the needful.  This is logical and makes sense.

What happened on this United flight though does not obviously fall under the same criteria.  If it does, then shame on United or any other airline as this is an abuse of power and clearly a very bad policy (rule).  These employees also displayed very bad judgement in carrying this out.

No one seems to have mentioned that this man is a doctor.  He stated several times before this happened that he is a doctor and needs to see his patients in the morning.  Is it not understandable that out of a group of people it is possible that some people can be inconvenienced with no issue and others it is a different story.  This man had very good reason to say no.  Can you imagine if you were going to funeral and some idiot flight attendant said, too bad - get off the plane.  Never mind the reason - good or bad - this should be optional.  If you can't, then they should be respectful and leave you alone.  After-all, you paid for your seat and you boarded the plane already and you are simply expecting to get to your destination. 

If an airline is consistently overbooking seats based on the fact they think some people always cancel then this is the first thing that should change.  They either sell you a ticket or not.

If they need seats back then they should offer everyone the option (including financial compensation) of volunteering for this.  If their are no takers then they need to increase the financial compensation until someone bites.  It is as simple as this.

I can tell you that these four crew members that they were trying to get seats for will cost United Airline far more now in a lawsuit than if they found another way to get them to the next destination.   Hmmm, rental car and a 4 hour drive - a couple hundred bucks - compared to millions and unbelievable bad public relations.

This should be a lesson for all of us.  If you remain silent and do not voice your concern when some company carries out some unorthodox practice toward you then we all deserve this sort of outcome.  An expensive lawsuit, bad PR, and loss of many customers is the hard way to learn that you shouldn't have made it a practice to disrespect people in this way.

I feel really sad for the UA CEO, he has lost all the trusts by revesing his comments, first he blamed the customer, and then he said it can't be Dr Dao's fault.

His apologies are not acceptable. True colors are from the initial comment.

Florestan posted:

Rules are rules?  I am a law and order person but when I read these things and then see people jump to some bizzare conclusions it makes me cringe.  Where has common sense gone to in this world?   A flawed rule is almost worse than no rule at all.

+1

If an airline is consistently overbooking seats based on the fact they think some people always cancel then this is the first thing that should change.  They either sell you a ticket or not.

The problem with that is that it would inevitably lead to ticket price rises...

If they need seats back then they should offer everyone the option (including financial compensation) of volunteering for this.  If their are no takers then they need to increase the financial compensation until someone bites.  It is as simple as this.

+1

I can tell you that these four crew members that they were trying to get seats for will cost United Airline far more now in a lawsuit than if they found another way to get them to the next destination.   Hmmm, rental car and a 4 hour drive - a couple hundred bucks - compared to millions and unbelievable bad public relations.

I'm not sure there is a case to answer in a law suit.  The bad publicity (the second case for United in just a few weeks) could cost bigly :-)

Would not a system where cancellations were only refunded when the seat was re-sold get around all this? That way, the airline knows that it will not lose out from cancellations or no-shows, and so records no gain from over-booking.

Difficult to police, of course.

Fraser

Most airlines have a business structure that involves the possibility of having to occasionally bump passengers.

How they implement this policy is crucial to their (potential) passengers' long-term perception of the airline. United clearly need to learn some lessons, both implementing their policy and dealing with subsequent adverse publicity.

I have noticed a few airlines, Westjet for example, who refer to their passengers as "Guests". This used to make me feel welcomed and "special". I am now wondering whether "guest" = "lower status" with virtually no rights as opposed to "passenger" with a contract.

The man in the video is very brave. Most people would just get up and walk off the plane so as not to make a disturbance. He knew what was happening was wrong and it violated his rights and he stood his ground. I don't think I would have the guts to do what he did. Because of him other people will not be treated like cattle by United.

If we're to believe the media  the selection process for decidinwho should be removed is done using a computer. I think this is b******t, the reason this guy was selected was because he was Asian and the authorities reckoned because of this remaining passengers would not come to his defence, that was the only thing they got right. "He who saves one life saves the world entire"

69 year old Dr.  Dao lost two teeth while being dragged off the plane, one has been found, one is still unaccounted for, perhaps someone keeps it as a souvenir?

JamieWednesday posted:

All legal apparently. Once you disobey the pilot's  order you're in the wrong.

No, it is not.