Shock as man forcibly removed from overbooked United Airlines flight

[Chris Tan 0]

If the govt doesn't involve, who will involve to intermediate for the sake of consumers? Their business license is also granted by the government, too.

Sure, they can protect consumers by enacting strict regulations regarding IDP compensation.

 

But as Suhaimi mentioned, banning overbooking isn't going to be a net positive for consumers.

[Mike P 0]

Sure, they can protect consumers by enacting strict regulations regarding IDP compensation.

 

But as Suhaimi mentioned, banning overbooking isn't going to be a net positive for consumers.

 

Somehow this has to be resolved else it's leading toward discrimination. It's not an opened bidding.

[Craig 0]

 

Somehow this has to be resolved else it's leading toward discrimination. It's not an opened bidding.

If US has similar laws to EC261, I'll be rich

 

It's easy. UA has a ceiling of $800 (from what I read and sounds reasonable). Anything above that requires a supervisor approval. Remove that restriction, there'll be takers. $1,000? No. OK, how about $1,500? No. OK how about....$5,000? Someone will budge. There's a price for everyone, just that everyone in that plane was higher than $800 for a 22-hour delay. Is $5k per pax better than this PR disaster and pending lawsuit/settlement?

 

Or the government could set a floor price for IDB (it's still too low since the incentive of them overselling is greater than the cost). There are too many instances where IDB pax aren't informed of their rights properly by the agents and processed as VDB (I don't know if agents are encouraged to do that because of IDB repercussions etc.).

 

But knowing US, this will all go away in a few weeks and it's back to business as usual. And the US3 will begin to lobby for more deregulations/incentives and more regulations to keep the ME3 at bay.

[flee 5]

Politicians who don't know nothing should shut the hell up. Sure overbooking can be banned, but then airlines would choose to make ALL tickets non-refundable. In the end the consumer is going to lose more than they'll gain.

 

It could be that the airline staff didn't want the pax to dispute the issue if they're told they were kicked off the pkane because they were holding the cheap seats in the house. Depending on the aggrieved passenger the reaction could range from reluctant acceptance to fiery anger.

It sort of reinforces Trump's view that politicians are generally stupid!

 

This case is now looking more like an offloading of pax issue rather than an overbooking issue because passengers who have checked in and boarded the aircraft are asked to make way for CREW. They were not asked to leave the aircraft so that other overbooked pax can board!

Edited April 13, 2017 by flee

[Waiping 12]

But how much overbooking can an airline do on each flight? Say they have 160 seats, can they sell 200?

[Mike P 0]

It sort of reinforces Trump's view that politicians are generally stupid!

 

This case is now looking more like an offloading of pax issue rather than an overbooking issue because passengers who have checked in and boarded the aircraft are asked to make way for CREW. They were not asked to leave the aircraft so that other overbooked pax can board!

 

Indeed, an expert said this case ain't overbooking, obviously UA has no right to boot Dr Dao or any other passengers on board to accommodate their employees. It's illegal.

[S V Choong 4]

I've always disliked UA and haven't flown with them for 7 years now because of poor customer service and rude cabin crew (even in International First Class!). It was my experience flying on UA in F between SYD and SFO 7 years ago that helped me to decide never to fly with them again. I wasn't treated badly but I saw how the flight attendants treated some of the other F passengers and it was just unbelievable!

 

Yep, Delta is definitely better and consist of more interesting fleet types than UA, even if it means they will Deliver Every Luggage To Atlanta (DELTA).

 

It is funny that in China, people think this is a racist case and now mainland Chinese are boycotting UA... how stupid! Even in HK... the news headlines read "Chinese American was dragged off from the plane by force - why did they pick a Chinese person?". Many in this part of Asia are quick to judge this case to be racial discrimination and are often reminded how racist western countries can be towards Chinese.............

I've always disliked UA and haven't flown with them for 7 years now because of poor customer service and rude cabin crew (even in International First Class!). It was my experience flying on UA in F between SYD and SFO 7 years ago that helped me to decide never to fly with them again. I wasn't treated badly but I saw how the flight attendants treated some of the other F passengers and it was just unbelievable!

 

Yep, Delta is definitely better and consist of more interesting fleet types than UA, even if it means they will Deliver Every Luggage To Atlanta (DELTA).

 

It is funny that in China, people think this is a racist case and now mainland Chinese are boycotting UA... how stupid! Even in HK... the news headlines read "Chinese American was dragged off from the plane by force - why did they pick a Chinese person?". Many in this part of Asia are quick to judge this case to be racial discrimination and are often reminded how racist western countries can be towards Chinese.............

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Indeed, an expert said this case ain't overbooking, obviously UA has no right to boot Dr Dao or any other passengers on board to accommodate their employees. It's illegal.

Actually UA & other airlines do have that right if the crew in question is taking the flight to reposition & operate a flight at the destination

[Mike P 0]

Actually UA & other airlines do have that right if the crew in question is taking the flight to reposition & operate a flight at the destination

 

How could they have the right when passengers already boarded and seated and about to take off then only to be "randomly" selected and removed? And this is sensitive and catchy, right? People might ask again.. what right? with violence?

[jahur 0]

 

How could they have the right when passengers already boarded and seated and about to take off then only to be "randomly" selected and removed? And this is sensitive and catchy, right? People might ask again.. what right? with violence?

Unfortunately airlines do have such rights it depends on how they manage the situation. I believe most airlines in Asia would put the crew on next available flight without bumping off passengers. Flights that the repositioned crew operate would likely be retimed to meet their corrected reporting hours and avoiding compensating passengers for delays. Unfortunately in the US most of the flights are pretty full and the route network is vast to do major retiming.

Edited April 13, 2017 by jahur

[JuliusWong 0]

Read somewhere that the victim now has hired two set of lawyers, one has started their work filing an emergency request with court demanding "preservation of evidence".

 

"But this has not stopped Dr Dao from hiring two prominent Chicago lawyers to represent him, engaging the services of corporate law specialist Stephen Golan and personal injury specialist Thomas Demetrio."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/david-dao-doctor-dragged-plane-files-court-papers-demanding-united-n745721

 

Three of the officers involved in the incident have been placed on administrative leave, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation. Their names have not been released.

President Trump also weighed-in Wednesday, saying what happened to Dao was "horrible."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3317911/united-airlines-passenger-dr-david-dao-violently-dragged-off-overbooked-plane-hires-lawyers-sue/

You can read more about lawyer Thomas Demetrio here: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170411/NEWS04/170419961/united-passenger-lawyers-up-with-tom-demetrio

Good luck with UA! They need a lot of it.......

Edited April 13, 2017 by JuliusWong

[jahur 0]

Another Passenger Complains Of Mistreatment By United Airlines

Geoff Fearns said the first-class ticket he held did not stop him from getting threatened and removed from the plane earlier this month.

“I think this is appalling that you’re throwing me off of my seat. She said if you don’t leave voluntarily, we’ll summon security and have you escorted off the plane,” Fearns recalled.

He bought a $1,000 ticket so he could get home a day sooner from Kauai. Despite arriving an hour early and boarding, a United employee suddenly demanded that he get off the plane because it was overbooked, according to Fearns.

“She said: ‘We have a priority list, and you’re at the bottom of it.’ The guy sitting next to me, who’s apparently a United frequent flyer, said: ‘Hey man! They get really nasty about this stuff. They’ll call the cops on you.’ And I’m like – for what? For sitting in my assigned seat?” Fearns questioned.

 

Read more:

 

http://losangeles..../

 

Higher priority list? Guess that last minute passenger had MileagePlus or Star Alliance gold that dictate the other passenger already on his seat to be demoted to Economy?

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

They may have the right, but not by dragging the pax along the aisle with a bloodied face though. The spotlight will be on the aviation police

[S V Choong 4]

 

How could they have the right when passengers already boarded and seated and about to take off then only to be "randomly" selected and removed? And this is sensitive and catchy, right? People might ask again.. what right? with violence?

Airlines and authorities do have the rights to remove people from flights. You would have agreed to it too on the conditions of carriage too.

[Mike P 0]

Airlines and authorities do have the rights to remove people from flights. You would have agreed to it too on the conditions of carriage too.

 

Well, let's see how it get settled in the lawsuit then.

[Craig 0]

 

Well, let's see how it get settled in the lawsuit then.

You won't. It'll be settled out of courts and the amount won't be disclosed.

[Mike P 0]

You won't. It'll be settled out of courts and the amount won't be disclosed.

 

UA could pay Dr Dao for $1b for all the people could care but it won't earn the sympathy from many enraged people to fly with UA at this time. If you think UA's action was justified, continue to fly with UA and get ready to be booted with busted face and injury.

[CX B. 0]

Sounds like most people believe that airlines enjoy such a right to bump people as and when they like it. Doubt this can be the case. A right as such has to arise from a legislation or from the contract between the airline and the pax. Not an expert on US aviation law here but at least from a contract law perspective (which isn't all that different because US contract law or our Malaysian contract law were both developed from the English contract law), it does seem that there is no such right to remove a passenger from a flight once the passenger has boarded, unless the passenger posed a security threat. I did not bother reading United's standard COC but there is a nice summary of it here on why United has no right to bump a pax after boarding based on the COC by a law prof at G. Washington University: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

 

Anyway even if there is such a right to bump a pax off the plane after boarding (just assuming if there is such a provision in the contract), I doubt the clause could be read to mean that a passenger has agreed in the CoC to be treated in such a manner with the use of force - remember, the situation arose only because of the airline's need for seats, not because of the passenger's misbehaviour. At least under English law (and to a certain extent Malaysian law) no one could ever consent through a contract to be inflicted with bodily harm (save for the situation of security threat). I don't see why US law would take a different position on this matter to allow someone to be forcibly dragged off the plane causing bodily harm just because a clause in the contract makes it appear to be permissible. Invalid consent = legally unenforceable clause. Only problem here is that the harm was caused by the aviation cops instead of the airline. So this complicates the matter a bit. But the police authority already admitted that what happened wasn't in accordance with their standard procedure. So basically misconduct on the part of the cops.

 

To sum up I really don't think that a person should be treated like this, and while not being an expert of those areas of law, gut feeling is that the airline did not have a right to force a pax off a plane for no good reason, and the cops acted in breach of their duty. Pax wins, and really, it should be settled at court or there won't be a binding precedent to prevent future mishaps.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

UA could pay Dr Dao for $1b for all the people could care but it won't earn the sympathy from many enraged people to fly with UA at this time. If you think UA's action was justified, continue to fly with UA and get ready to be booted with busted face and injury.

To be fair, UA didn't bust the passenger's face. Airport security did. I'd think that under the same circumstances it would still happen even if it was DL or AA in UA's place.

 

In any case it will be forgotten in a fortnight, just how people had forgotten that whole controversy about passengers denied boarding because they were wearing leggings (on UA no less, although granted they had stronger justification since the passengers were travelling on staff discounted tickets) or Delta's mangled handling of irregular operations in ATL late last week.

 

Sounds like most people believe that airlines enjoy such a right to bump people as and when they like it. Doubt this can be the case. A right as such has to arise from a legislation or from the contract between the airline and the pax. Not an expert on US aviation law here but at least from a contract law perspective (which isn't all that different because US contract law or our Malaysian contract law were both developed from the English contract law), it does seem that there is no such right to remove a passenger from a flight once the passenger has boarded, unless the passenger posed a security threat. I did not bother reading United's standard COC but there is a nice summary of it here on why United has no right to bump a pax after boarding based on the COC by a law prof at G. Washington University: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Because there's no explicit rule that states passenger already boarded cannot be bumped before departure I don't think it's as clear cut as it may sound. Also given that there's no clear definition of what constitutes boarding in the CoC United could simply argue that the boarding process is not complete until pushback.

 

Anyway even if there is such a right to bump a pax off the plane after boarding (just assuming if there is such a provision in the contract), I doubt the clause could be read to mean that a passenger has agreed in the CoC to be treated in such a manner with the use of force - remember, the situation arose only because of the airline's need for seats, not because of the passenger's misbehaviour. At least under English law (and to a certain extent Malaysian law) no one could ever consent through a contract to be inflicted with bodily harm (save for the situation of security threat). I don't see why US law would take a different position on this matter to allow someone to be forcibly dragged off the plane causing bodily harm just because a clause in the contract makes it appear to be permissible. Invalid consent = legally unenforceable clause. Only problem here is that the harm was caused by the aviation cops instead of the airline. So this complicates the matter a bit. But the police authority already admitted that what happened wasn't in accordance with their standard procedure. So basically misconduct on the part of the cops.

United should, could & must contest & shift the liability to the Airport police because it wasn't United's staff who administered the beating, unless there is proof that the United employee ordered excessive force to be used.

 

To sum up I really don't think that a person should be treated like this, and while not being an expert of those areas of law, gut feeling is that the airline did not have a right to force a pax off a plane for no good reason, and the cops acted in breach of their duty. Pax wins, and really, it should be settled at court or there won't be a binding precedent to prevent future mishaps.

 

There is a good reason - they're accommodating crews operating the next flight out of the destination airport. It is the last flight of the day, and if they waited they would have needed to delay that flight & thus inconveniencing up to 50-100 people.

 

Inconveniencing 4 or 100? The choice is pretty simple actually.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Mike P 0]

To be fair, UA didn't bust the passenger's face. Airport security did. I'd think that under the same circumstances it would still happen even if it was DL or AA in UA's place.

 

In any case it will be forgotten in a fortnight, just how people had forgotten that whole controversy about passengers denied boarding because they were wearing leggings (on UA no less, although granted they had stronger justification since the passengers were travelling on staff discounted tickets) or Delta's mangled handling of irregular operations in ATL late last week.

 

That's what I've asked earlier while United was being targeted, what about those authority/police who dragged Dr Dao off the plane, violently? Then later was said they were acting on behalf of UA in which UA condoned this action.

 

The news conference is live now on CNN Facebook. The attorney has said till today, there's no call or any form of reaching out to Dr Dao and his family from Oscar Munoz or any UA rep. Wow...

[Craig 0]

 

UA could pay Dr Dao for $1b for all the people could care but it won't earn the sympathy from many enraged people to fly with UA at this time. If you think UA's action was justified, continue to fly with UA and get ready to be booted with busted face and injury.

 

I have never said UA's action was justified.

 

But having that said, a boycott wouldn't work. I don't fly UA that much (only 1 flight in 2016), but if UA released a $500 SFO-HKG RT Polaris fare, you bet I'll be the first one to jump on it. Look how well MH is doing in China now? All this will be forgotten in a few weeks.

 

I do recall one MW member telling me that she'll boycott QR because they didn't honor her HKT-KUL fare, but she's happily flying QR around the world now

[Chris Tan 0]

But how much overbooking can an airline do on each flight? Say they have 160 seats, can they sell 200?

That's up to the airline to decide, and hopefully be smart about it. They usually decide based on historical no-show data for every flight/route. Some destinations are more prone to no-shows than others, like India. On the flip side, being adventurous with overbooking over CNY/Hari Raya when many people are rushing to balik kampung probably isn't the smartest idea.

 

 

I have never said UA's action was justified.

 

But having that said, a boycott wouldn't work. I don't fly UA that much (only 1 flight in 2016), but if UA released a $500 SFO-HKG RT Polaris fare, you bet I'll be the first one to jump on it. Look how well MH is doing in China now? All this will be forgotten in a few weeks.

 

I do recall one MW member telling me that she'll boycott QR because they didn't honor her HKT-KUL fare, but she's happily flying QR around the world now

I was bitterly disappointed when UA didn't honor the Danish kroner fare. My boycott lasted 6 months

[CX B. 0]

Because there's no explicit rule that states passenger already boarded cannot be bumped before departure I don't think it's as clear cut as it may sound. Also given that there's no clear definition of what constitutes boarding in the CoC United could simply argue that the boarding process is not complete until pushback.

 

Good point on the definition of boarding. But if boarding is construed in the literal sense, it is exactly because there is no legal right to bump a passenger after boarding which made it wrong for United to have forcibly removed the pax. As said the right to bump must derive from a legislation or from the contract - and apparently there is no such right at all unless boarding is successfully argued to be a while process from boarding announcement to the moment the chocks are removed for pushback.

 

United should, could & must contest & shift the liability to the Airport police because it wasn't United's staff who administered the beating, unless there is proof that the United employee ordered excessive force to be used.

 

It was't their staff who administered the beating and we don't know if the cops were requested to apply violence. But the incident happen nevertheless because of United's need for seats - which is something they probably will contest at the court on the reasonableness thereof. If it is found to be unreasonable to bump a pax off because of the need for seats for its crews, I think there is a causal link there to establish liability. But how useful this causal link can be really depends on which area of law they are relying. The cops are definitely liable though, especially when the person administering the violence was not following the standard protocol as they already admitted. But United is too liable here in my opinion la, because but for their potentially wrongful need to get the pax out of the plane the doctor wouldn't have suffered. It is something like manslaughter under most common law jurisdictions, where if you intend to only slap someone (hence assault) but somehow that slap results in the victim loosing balance and falling off the balcony (haha imagine), you are liable for manslaughter even though you did not intend the victim to fall and die. But the United situation is a bit complicated with different entities involved. See how the drama unfolds la.

 

There is a good reason - they're accommodating crews operating the next flight out of the destination airport. It is the last flight of the day, and if they waited they would have needed to delay that flight & thus inconveniencing up to 50-100 people.

 

Inconveniencing 4 or 100? The choice is pretty simple actually.

 

Don't think that is a good reason though, because as many online have already suggested, the destination is merely a few hours car ride away, or United could have paxed their crew over by their competitors' flight. There were quite some options but they decided to go the ugliest way. The availability of other options are actually very relevant IMO in deciding the reasonableness of their action, both in terms of fact and in terms of law.

 

Can't wait for the case to go to the court I hope they don't settle outside the court! No matter how complex the airline business is (and we all know it is very complicated), no one should ever be treated in this manner. While security is a concern, there is a fine line between security and operational issues and airlines should be made to realise the distinction - this is important because we can't assume that all airlines will operate responsibly like most Asian carriers with good customer services would, and there is a need to protect vulnerable passengers like the poor fella.

Edited April 13, 2017 by CX B.

[calvinoeh 0]

 

I have never said UA's action was justified.

 

But having that said, a boycott wouldn't work. I don't fly UA that much (only 1 flight in 2016), but if UA released a $500 SFO-HKG RT Polaris fare, you bet I'll be the first one to jump on it. Look how well MH is doing in China now? All this will be forgotten in a few weeks.

 

I do recall one MW member telling me that she'll boycott QR because they didn't honor her HKT-KUL fare, but she's happily flying QR around the world now

 

Agree... i'm waiting for super sale from UA

[Josh T 0]

Never under-estimate people's resolve. I've avoided United for 7 years already and I fly a lot. I hold grudges for a very long time. I don't care how cheap their fares are.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Josh T