FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Passenger dragged of a plane
Passenger dragged of a plane
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"https://youtu.be/2zTJPmqZReY Just heard this on the news,united airlines overbook on purpose this time of year as a lot of people seem to cancel,3 people left voluntarily exept for this poor guy.....ridiculous" Excuse my poor spelling | |||
| |||
| |||
"Without knowing what the back story is it's not possible to comment. I do know that it's being looked in to though." I listened to it on radio,apparently they overbook on purpose to compensate for cancellations and people not turning up for flights,everybody turned up for the flight including 4 overbooked passengers,they drew 4 names at random and asked them to leave,3 did,this man didnt | |||
"Without knowing what the back story is it's not possible to comment. I do know that it's being looked in to though. I listened to it on radio,apparently they overbook on purpose to compensate for cancellations and people not turning up for flights,everybody turned up for the flight including 4 overbooked passengers,they drew 4 names at random and asked them to leave,3 did,this man didnt" I listened to it on the radio too and read it on a couple of news sites. There are differences in every account I've heard or read. My favourite bit of them all is United Airlines referring to an "involuntary deboarding situation"  | |||
"Saw this yesterday and it's shocking! What I don't understand though is how the guy actually got ON to an overbooked flight. Usually as you board you get a green light or _ed light to let you board - I'm surprised the United systems didn't notice that two people had booked the same seat and prevent one of them from even boarding in the first place. The bigger issue might be security here!"  It doesn't ring true that extra people could board! Disgusting that they dragged him off. I'll be interested to see how the story develops.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I haven't heard the story yet,but it sounds bloody annoying!" Watch my vid on the op | |||
I can't understand why overbooking is actually allowed as surely they can only sell a set number of seats. Even if passengers do not turn up for their flight the seat is still paid for. | |||
"Without knowing what the back story is it's not possible to comment. I do know that it's being looked in to though. I listened to it on radio,apparently they overbook on purpose to compensate for cancellations and people not turning up for flights,everybody turned up for the flight including 4 overbooked passengers,they drew 4 names at random and asked them to leave,3 did,this man didnt" i used to work for a travel co. and its common practice to overbook flights and hotel room allocations - but not sure how extra people can actually get past the booking in point never mind boarding the plane  | |||
I've been on overbooked flights. Most of us have. I seem to remember that dillemmas* like this are resolved BEFORE passengers step onto the plane.
United were in the wrong for this incident. They expected him to go quietly. They were wrong. I don't know how they are going to explain away such a violent and degrading removal of a paying passenger.
If this passenger sues United into the dark ages for incident I wouldn't be surprised, seeing that the US is such a legitous country.
*Could someone tell me if this word is spelt correctly? My autocorrect is set to US English settings. It doesn't offer UK English settings.The way it's spelt looks weird to me! | |||
| |||
"
I've been on overbooked flights. Most of us have. I seem to remember that dillemmas* like this are resolved BEFORE passengers step onto the plane.
United were in the wrong for this incident. They expected him to go quietly. They were wrong. I don't know how they are going to explain away such a violent and degrading removal of a paying passenger.
If this passenger sues United into the dark ages for incident I wouldn't be surprised, seeing that the US is such a legitous country.
*Could someone tell me if this word is spelt correctly? My autocorrect is set to US English settings. It doesn't offer UK English settings.The way it's spelt looks weird to me!"Litigious?  | |||
"Story so far. He was a doctor and refused to leave the plane as he had an appointment to keep. Over booking and removal from a plane is perfectly legal too
I can't understand why overbooking is actually allowed as surely they can only sell a set number of seats. Even if passengers do not turn up for their flight the seat is still paid for. "It's common for passengers, especially those travelling on business, to book fully refundable and/or changeable tickets as their timetables may alter. This can result in empty seats on busy flights, which airlines can ill afford, hence they overbook and factor in a percentage of 'no shows'. If too many passengers turn up, a certain number will be 'denied boarding'. The difference on this flight is that the airline decided it needed to fly 4 crew members to the destination AFTER all passengers had checked in and boarded the airline. 4 passengers were offe_ed compensation to leave the aircraft. 3 agreed and the 4th refused and was forcibly removed from the plane. Whilst United acted within their terms and condition of carriage ( same for all airlines) the way it was carried out was a PR disaster, especially in this day of smart phones. | |||
"Story so far. He was a doctor and refused to leave the plane as he had an appointment to keep. Over booking and removal from a plane is perfectly legal too
I can't understand why overbooking is actually allowed as surely they can only sell a set number of seats. Even if passengers do not turn up for their flight the seat is still paid for.
It's common for passengers, especially those travelling on business, to book fully refundable and/or changeable tickets as their timetables may alter. This can result in empty seats on busy flights, which airlines can ill afford, hence they overbook and factor in a percentage of 'no shows'. If too many passengers turn up, a certain number will be 'denied boarding'.
The difference on this flight is that the airline decided it needed to fly 4 crew members to the destination AFTER all passengers had checked in and boarded the airline. 4 passengers were offe_ed compensation to leave the aircraft. 3 agreed and the 4th refused and was forcibly removed from the plane. Whilst United acted within their terms and condition of carriage ( same for all airlines) the way it was carried out was a PR disaster, especially in this day of smart phones."I couldnt have put that better | |||
| |||
| |||
"Only 2 passengers voluntee_ed to leave. The third was the Dr's wife, who, after a lot of apparant bullying and coercion by the staff, left. Was it because they were an Asian couple, so seen as an easy target? The poor man was left inju_ed and bloodied. I really hope he sues... American Airlines also bar_ed two young girls from flying recently, because they were wearing leggings... Not good..." I hope he does after seeing the video,image if that was you and your partner it would be a horrible experience. | |||
| |||
"
I've been on overbooked flights. Most of us have. I seem to remember that dillemmas* like this are resolved BEFORE passengers step onto the plane.
United were in the wrong for this incident. They expected him to go quietly. They were wrong. I don't know how they are going to explain away such a violent and degrading removal of a paying passenger.
If this passenger sues United into the dark ages for incident I wouldn't be surprised, seeing that the US is such a legitous country.
*Could someone tell me if this word is spelt correctly? My autocorrect is set to US English settings. It doesn't offer UK English settings.The way it's spelt looks weird to me!
Litigious? "I know! That looked really strange too! I think I need to go shopping for a decent keyboard app. This Google keyboard is ridiculous... | |||
"
I've been on overbooked flights. Most of us have. I seem to remember that dillemmas* like this are resolved BEFORE passengers step onto the plane.
United were in the wrong for this incident. They expected him to go quietly. They were wrong. I don't know how they are going to explain away such a violent and degrading removal of a paying passenger.
If this passenger sues United into the dark ages for incident I wouldn't be surprised, seeing that the US is such a legitous country.
*Could someone tell me if this word is spelt correctly? My autocorrect is set to US English settings. It doesn't offer UK English settings.The way it's spelt looks weird to me!
Litigious?
I know! That looked really strange too!
I think I need to go shopping for a decent keyboard app. This Google keyboard is ridiculous...
"Litigious is a legit word... | |||
"Truely shocking. Was he d*unk? No. Was he violent? No. Was he pestering staff or passengers? No. Was he a terror threat? No. Disgusting behaviour by American Airlines. Wonder how long before they go out of business? "It was United Airlines, as was the leggings incident. | |||
| |||
" It does all look horrendous admittedly. But I imagine somewhere there small print saying the company can remove you from the flight? Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? Sadly for those who never deal with human conflict, things get like this, and to the non acquainted it's very ugly." Still doesn't make it right though even if it is in the small print. It was their mistake. | |||
" It does all look horrendous admittedly. But I imagine somewhere there small print saying the company can remove you from the flight? Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? Sadly for those who never deal with human conflict, things get like this, and to the non acquainted it's very ugly." The company's behaviour was indefensible.... | |||
| |||
" It does all look horrendous admittedly. But I imagine somewhere there small print saying the company can remove you from the flight? Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? Sadly for those who never deal with human conflict, things get like this, and to the non acquainted it's very ugly. The company's behaviour was indefensible...." | |||
"Without knowing what the back story is it's not possible to comment. I do know that it's being looked in to though. I listened to it on radio,apparently they overbook on purpose to compensate for cancellations and people not turning up for flights,everybody turned up for the flight including 4 overbooked passengers,they drew 4 names at random and asked them to leave,3 did,this man didnt I listened to it on the radio too and read it on a couple of news sites. There are differences in every account I've heard or read. My favourite bit of them all is United Airlines referring to an "involuntary deboarding situation" "That's just a polite way of saying "we chucked the fucker off" | |||
| |||
" It does all look horrendous admittedly. But I imagine somewhere there small print saying the company can remove you from the flight? Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? Sadly for those who never deal with human conflict, things get like this, and to the non acquainted it's very ugly." Then bump up the offer to leave the plane from $800 to $1000. They would've had plenty of takers to that offer. That would have been a saving compa_ed to the amount of money United has lost through bad PR. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If that was the guy's wife I'd be screaming at them!" It make's me wonder how low they would go,would they do that to a 83 year old woman if she refused to get off!! | |||
"If that was the guy's wife I'd be screaming at them! It make's me wonder how low they would go,would they do that to a 83 year old woman if she refused to get off!!" Or a poor 62 year old. Don't forget the poor 62 year olds. | |||
"United 'Fly the Friendly Skies' will never receive another booking from us. As an airline, they seem to go out of their way to make your trip as difficult and miserable as possible. I'm sure that there a many people who have positive experiences flying with them, but ours have been, universally, negative and that's in business class, not economy. We're neither rude, condescending, demanding or unpleasant but the United 'experience' sucks. The pilots do a great job in getting you from A to B, but the ground and cabin staff appear to have no interest in providing any sort of service in return for your hard earned cash. If you check-in luggage, it's like playing roulette as to whether it will actually travel on the same aircraft. An absolutely shambolic excuse for an organisation. SS" I've heard that from so many people who fly within the US. Just check YT for the chorus of disapproval. If I did need to fly within the US, I certainly wouldn't use them either. Their competitors must have given this reaction first
then rubbed their hands in glee.. | |||
"If that was the guy's wife I'd be screaming at them! It make's me wonder how low they would go,would they do that to a 83 year old woman if she refused to get off!! Or a poor 62 year old. Don't forget the poor 62 year olds." Nar they're fine they can look after themselves  | |||
"The airline should have stuck the staff in a rental car and told the to drive. It's a paltry 300 miles from Chicago to Louisville. Probably quicker to drive anyway by the time you factor check in, security, boarding, the flight, clearing security and customs at the other end. " Surely they had more than one plane at the airport anyway.
PR disaster. Hope he sues the crap out of them!! | |||
| |||
"The airline should have offe_ed money incentive that would eventually sway one of the passengers to agree to de-board the plane. They've stopped at $800 dollars. I'm sure they would have plenty of volunteers at $2000 or $3000 dollars (this is usually an average compensation). That mistake cost the company A LOT more than $3000..." I don't know where you get your average compensation figures from. The maximum a US airline is requi_ed to pay to a passenger denied boarding is $1300. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The airline should have offe_ed money incentive that would eventually sway one of the passengers to agree to de-board the plane. They've stopped at $800 dollars. I'm sure they would have plenty of volunteers at $2000 or $3000 dollars (this is usually an average compensation). That mistake cost the company A LOT more than $3000... I don't know where you get your average compensation figures from. The maximum a US airline is requi_ed to pay to a passenger denied boarding is $1300." Actually it's $3,500 depending on circumstances. | |||
"The airline should have offe_ed money incentive that would eventually sway one of the passengers to agree to de-board the plane. They've stopped at $800 dollars. I'm sure they would have plenty of volunteers at $2000 or $3000 dollars (this is usually an average compensation). That mistake cost the company A LOT more than $3000... I don't know where you get your average compensation figures from. The maximum a US airline is requi_ed to pay to a passenger denied boarding is $1300. Actually it's $3,500 depending on circumstances. " Taken from UA Contract of Carriage Document:r For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD. Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incur_ed or to be incur_ed by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. So which circumstances increase the compensation to $3500? | |||
| |||
"Going to cost them a lot more when he sues... He was a passenger on an airline, his ticket had be bought and he was seated. He is also a doctor and had to get back for a patient....he made that statement before he refused to move. United asked for volunteers...someone to willingly give up a seat so their staff could fly for free. A doctor with a legally paid for ticket and a bloody good reason should not of been forcibly dragged off a plane let alone punched and thrown about. He was not abusive, a threat or even a dickhead passenger. United airlines breached his terms of carriage the momemt they tried to strong arm him off...they then assaulted a man who poised no threat. The CEOs statement is a joke! " Unfortunately the law is with the airline on the matter of the passenger being removed from the airplane. Once on board, the pilot is in control and if a passenger is requested to disembark and refuses they are classed as a disruptive passenger and can be forcibly removed. Having said that, United got this horribly wrong. | |||
"swift justice .... i have just this moment read in the broadsheets that $1 biilion has bee wiped off the holding company's share value since the video went viral "Reading that news did make me smile. I wonder how the poor guy is doing.  | |||
| |||
"Usually if a flight is overbooked they offer a replacement flight and vouchers as an incentive to get people to volunteer to give up their seats and have no trouble finding volunteers for that reason. I don't understand how this escalated to the extent it did or Why on earth offloading passengers for off duty staff to hot seat was acceptable "
They should have to offer enough money in vouchers that someone eventually decides it's worth giving up their seat for - especially considering it was their own staff they were making room for.
Not to mention that the man had already checked in, boarded, and been seated. In my experience, when a flight is overbooked, they usually spot the problem before boarding. What a poor excuse for organization and service. What the airline industry can get away with is beyond ridiculous. | |||
"The airline should have offe_ed money incentive that would eventually sway one of the passengers to agree to de-board the plane. They've stopped at $800 dollars. I'm sure they would have plenty of volunteers at $2000 or $3000 dollars (this is usually an average compensation). That mistake cost the company A LOT more than $3000... I don't know where you get your average compensation figures from. The maximum a US airline is requi_ed to pay to a passenger denied boarding is $1300. Actually it's $3,500 depending on circumstances. Taken from UA Contract of Carriage Document:r For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD. Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incur_ed or to be incur_ed by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. So which circumstances increase the compensation to $3500?" The contract doesn't detail every exception. Some passengers have booked connecting, flights, hotels etc which could cost a lot more than $1350. The airline is then responsible for compensating the passenger for the total amount of loss. Some cases involved overnight accommodation if there are no further flights to that location on the day, compensation of food, toiletries bought for that day. The passenger could have checked their bag and were separated from it, which is another circumstance where the airline has to up their compensation. If the contract of carriage would list all of its circumstances the document would be longer than one could possible expect to read. This was also not an overbooked flight situation but the airline was trying to shift additional crew members to another locations to avoid cancelling a flight. 4 people could have been refused boarding but in this case everyone was already on the plane and they were just kicking people off rather than refusing entry. The underlying fact is, they fucked up, really bad... They know that, the passenger knows that, everyone who saw it on the news knows that. It's great to be a boss of a huge company like United, but the downfall could always be PR. This is a perfect example of how a badly managed flight can cost the company a few millions rather than 2000 bucks or so. | |||
"Going to cost them a lot more when he sues... He was a passenger on an airline, his ticket had be bought and he was seated. He is also a doctor and had to get back for a patient....he made that statement before he refused to move. United asked for volunteers...someone to willingly give up a seat so their staff could fly for free. A doctor with a legally paid for ticket and a bloody good reason should not of been forcibly dragged off a plane let alone punched and thrown about. He was not abusive, a threat or even a dickhead passenger. United airlines breached his terms of carriage the momemt they tried to strong arm him off...they then assaulted a man who poised no threat. The CEOs statement is a joke! Unfortunately the law is with the airline on the matter of the passenger being removed from the airplane. Once on board, the pilot is in control and if a passenger is requested to disembark and refuses they are classed as a disruptive passenger and can be forcibly removed. Having said that, United got this horribly wrong." They asked for volunteers, no one stepped forward....the other 3 passengers moved begrudgingly and he sat expained his case "i am a doctor, heading back to deal with a patient" The actions of removing him from the plane caused stress to those who had to watch it, they also endange_ed the life of his patient who he was seeing the next day as an urgent appointment. There is no excuse to remove someone from a plane in that manner. Lets take the fact that most airlines dont sell all their tickets.....quite the opposite. Airlines flying into the UK keep 6 seats free for medical emergencies or staff transfers...dont quote me on this because i have not done aeromedical work for a long time but it used to be up to an hour from take off we had to let the airline know we were using the seats for a medical repatriation. After that time they were either assigned to be sold or for staff. So i rock up with a patient, cardic history and i sit and go...sorry cant im with him....does that mean they can 1) drag me off the plane and 2) drag him off because of him not being able to travel without me? So far because of their actions and a CEO that has obviously been hit in the face by the hulk for his comment about "re-assigning" people so far its cost them $1 bil on the stock market and thats just today...the fact people are selling stock that quickly speaks volumes | |||
| |||
"The airline should have offe_ed money incentive that would eventually sway one of the passengers to agree to de-board the plane. They've stopped at $800 dollars. I'm sure they would have plenty of volunteers at $2000 or $3000 dollars (this is usually an average compensation). That mistake cost the company A LOT more than $3000... I don't know where you get your average compensation figures from. The maximum a US airline is requi_ed to pay to a passenger denied boarding is $1300. Actually it's $3,500 depending on circumstances. Taken from UA Contract of Carriage Document:r For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD. Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incur_ed or to be incur_ed by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. So which circumstances increase the compensation to $3500? The contract doesn't detail every exception. Some passengers have booked connecting, flights, hotels etc which could cost a lot more than $1350. The airline is then responsible for compensating the passenger for the total amount of loss. Some cases involved overnight accommodation if there are no further flights to that location on the day, compensation of food, toiletries bought for that day. The passenger could have checked their bag and were separated from it, which is another circumstance where the airline has to up their compensation. If the contract of carriage would list all of its circumstances the document would be longer than one could possible expect to read. This was also not an overbooked flight situation but the airline was trying to shift additional crew members to another locations to avoid cancelling a flight. 4 people could have been refused boarding but in this case everyone was already on the plane and they were just kicking people off rather than refusing entry. The underlying fact is, they fucked up, really bad... They know that, the passenger knows that, everyone who saw it on the news knows that. It's great to be a boss of a huge company like United, but the downfall could always be PR. This is a perfect example of how a badly managed flight can cost the company a few millions rather than 2000 bucks or so." You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. " If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. | |||
| |||
"Going to cost them a lot more when he sues... He was a passenger on an airline, his ticket had be bought and he was seated. He is also a doctor and had to get back for a patient....he made that statement before he refused to move. United asked for volunteers...someone to willingly give up a seat so their staff could fly for free. A doctor with a legally paid for ticket and a bloody good reason should not of been forcibly dragged off a plane let alone punched and thrown about. He was not abusive, a threat or even a dickhead passenger. United airlines breached his terms of carriage the momemt they tried to strong arm him off...they then assaulted a man who poised no threat. The CEOs statement is a joke! Unfortunately the law is with the airline on the matter of the passenger being removed from the airplane. Once on board, the pilot is in control and if a passenger is requested to disembark and refuses they are classed as a disruptive passenger and can be forcibly removed. Having said that, United got this horribly wrong. They asked for volunteers, no one stepped forward....the other 3 passengers moved begrudgingly and he sat expained his case "i am a doctor, heading back to deal with a patient" The actions of removing him from the plane caused stress to those who had to watch it, they also endange_ed the life of his patient who he was seeing the next day as an urgent appointment. There is no excuse to remove someone from a plane in that manner. Lets take the fact that most airlines dont sell all their tickets.....quite the opposite. Airlines flying into the UK keep 6 seats free for medical emergencies or staff transfers...dont quote me on this because i have not done aeromedical work for a long time but it used to be up to an hour from take off we had to let the airline know we were using the seats for a medical repatriation. After that time they were either assigned to be sold or for staff. So i rock up with a patient, cardic history and i sit and go...sorry cant im with him....does that mean they can 1) drag me off the plane and 2) drag him off because of him not being able to travel without me? So far because of their actions and a CEO that has obviously been hit in the face by the hulk for his comment about "re-assigning" people so far its cost them $1 bil on the stock market and thats just today...the fact people are selling stock that quickly speaks volumes" I think you will find that on busy routes, airlines frequently overbook. I have no knowledge of airlines having to keep back 6 seats for medical emergencies and I'm speaking from extensive knowledge of the travel industry and airlines , including dealing with aeromedical companies. Im not condoning UA's actions, indeed I have said they got it horribly wrong but they acted within the law to request a passenger to disembark the plane and the passenger was legally wrong to refuse. | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars." Sorry but you're just wrong! | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars." You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard. | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard." I completely agree with your sentiment. As I have said I in no way condone UA's actions, I was questioning the figures the other poster quoted as they are incorrect. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Going to cost them a lot more when he sues... He was a passenger on an airline, his ticket had be bought and he was seated. He is also a doctor and had to get back for a patient....he made that statement before he refused to move. United asked for volunteers...someone to willingly give up a seat so their staff could fly for free. A doctor with a legally paid for ticket and a bloody good reason should not of been forcibly dragged off a plane let alone punched and thrown about. He was not abusive, a threat or even a dickhead passenger. United airlines breached his terms of carriage the momemt they tried to strong arm him off...they then assaulted a man who poised no threat. The CEOs statement is a joke! Unfortunately the law is with the airline on the matter of the passenger being removed from the airplane. Once on board, the pilot is in control and if a passenger is requested to disembark and refuses they are classed as a disruptive passenger and can be forcibly removed. Having said that, United got this horribly wrong. They asked for volunteers, no one stepped forward....the other 3 passengers moved begrudgingly and he sat expained his case "i am a doctor, heading back to deal with a patient" The actions of removing him from the plane caused stress to those who had to watch it, they also endange_ed the life of his patient who he was seeing the next day as an urgent appointment. There is no excuse to remove someone from a plane in that manner. Lets take the fact that most airlines dont sell all their tickets.....quite the opposite. Airlines flying into the UK keep 6 seats free for medical emergencies or staff transfers...dont quote me on this because i have not done aeromedical work for a long time but it used to be up to an hour from take off we had to let the airline know we were using the seats for a medical repatriation. After that time they were either assigned to be sold or for staff. So i rock up with a patient, cardic history and i sit and go...sorry cant im with him....does that mean they can 1) drag me off the plane and 2) drag him off because of him not being able to travel without me? So far because of their actions and a CEO that has obviously been hit in the face by the hulk for his comment about "re-assigning" people so far its cost them $1 bil on the stock market and thats just today...the fact people are selling stock that quickly speaks volumes I think you will find that on busy routes, airlines frequently overbook. I have no knowledge of airlines having to keep back 6 seats for medical emergencies and I'm speaking from extensive knowledge of the travel industry and airlines , including dealing with aeromedical companies. Im not condoning UA's actions, indeed I have said they got it horribly wrong but they acted within the law to request a passenger to disembark the plane and the passenger was legally wrong to refuse. " As said ive not done aeromedical for several years now.. Sorry but at no point is assaulting someone who has purchased a ticket, gone through check in, taken his seat justified. The moment they bought on security they broke their contract with the passenger and then assaulted him. They asked for volunteers and none came forward. The staff should of been put on another flight. A man responsible for someones life took a beating so a member of staff could travel for free. Put yourself in his place.....someone is in urgent need of you, a doctor....would you give up a seat? And then would you expect to be hit, dragged off a plane so a member of staff can fly for zip? Hell no! | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard. I completely agree with your sentiment. As I have said I in no way condone UA's actions, I was questioning the figures the other poster quoted as they are incorrect." I get that. But really you're both just giving opinions on the figures as I've yet to see someone actually quote relevant law or contractual regulations. Admittedly I only skimmed the thread, so I suppose the supporting information could be in there somewhere... | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard. I completely agree with your sentiment. As I have said I in no way condone UA's actions, I was questioning the figures the other poster quoted as they are incorrect. I get that. But really you're both just giving opinions on the figures as I've yet to see someone actually quote relevant law or contractual regulations. Admittedly I only skimmed the thread, so I suppose the supporting information could be in there somewhere..." Without wishing to elaborate, I'm speaking from knowledge of the industry. I quoted 2 relevent clauses from UA's conditions of carriage, including the Limit of Liability for denied boarding earlier in the thread. | |||
"Going to cost them a lot more when he sues... He was a passenger on an airline, his ticket had be bought and he was seated. He is also a doctor and had to get back for a patient....he made that statement before he refused to move. United asked for volunteers...someone to willingly give up a seat so their staff could fly for free. A doctor with a legally paid for ticket and a bloody good reason should not of been forcibly dragged off a plane let alone punched and thrown about. He was not abusive, a threat or even a dickhead passenger. United airlines breached his terms of carriage the momemt they tried to strong arm him off...they then assaulted a man who poised no threat. The CEOs statement is a joke! Unfortunately the law is with the airline on the matter of the passenger being removed from the airplane. Once on board, the pilot is in control and if a passenger is requested to disembark and refuses they are classed as a disruptive passenger and can be forcibly removed. Having said that, United got this horribly wrong. They asked for volunteers, no one stepped forward....the other 3 passengers moved begrudgingly and he sat expained his case "i am a doctor, heading back to deal with a patient" The actions of removing him from the plane caused stress to those who had to watch it, they also endange_ed the life of his patient who he was seeing the next day as an urgent appointment. There is no excuse to remove someone from a plane in that manner. Lets take the fact that most airlines dont sell all their tickets.....quite the opposite. Airlines flying into the UK keep 6 seats free for medical emergencies or staff transfers...dont quote me on this because i have not done aeromedical work for a long time but it used to be up to an hour from take off we had to let the airline know we were using the seats for a medical repatriation. After that time they were either assigned to be sold or for staff. So i rock up with a patient, cardic history and i sit and go...sorry cant im with him....does that mean they can 1) drag me off the plane and 2) drag him off because of him not being able to travel without me? So far because of their actions and a CEO that has obviously been hit in the face by the hulk for his comment about "re-assigning" people so far its cost them $1 bil on the stock market and thats just today...the fact people are selling stock that quickly speaks volumes I think you will find that on busy routes, airlines frequently overbook. I have no knowledge of airlines having to keep back 6 seats for medical emergencies and I'm speaking from extensive knowledge of the travel industry and airlines , including dealing with aeromedical companies. Im not condoning UA's actions, indeed I have said they got it horribly wrong but they acted within the law to request a passenger to disembark the plane and the passenger was legally wrong to refuse. As said ive not done aeromedical for several years now.. Sorry but at no point is assaulting someone who has purchased a ticket, gone through check in, taken his seat justified. The moment they bought on security they broke their contract with the passenger and then assaulted him. They asked for volunteers and none came forward. The staff should of been put on another flight. A man responsible for someones life took a beating so a member of staff could travel for free. Put yourself in his place.....someone is in urgent need of you, a doctor....would you give up a seat? And then would you expect to be hit, dragged off a plane so a member of staff can fly for zip? Hell no! " As I've already said, the airline acted within the law up to the point where security were called to remove the passenger as he had refused to leave when requested to do so. The airline did not break the contract by calling security. What happened after that will be a lawyer's bonanza no doubt. Of course I wouldn't be happy to be asked to leave my seat under those circumstances but I also understand the consequences of refusing. | |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard. I completely agree with your sentiment. As I have said I in no way condone UA's actions, I was questioning the figures the other poster quoted as they are incorrect. I get that. But really you're both just giving opinions on the figures as I've yet to see someone actually quote relevant law or contractual regulations. Admittedly I only skimmed the thread, so I suppose the supporting information could be in there somewhere... Without wishing to elaborate, I'm speaking from knowledge of the industry. I quoted 2 relevent clauses from UA's conditions of carriage, including the Limit of Liability for denied boarding earlier in the thread. " I've looked it up myself since I couldn't find it in this thread: 14 CRF 250.5: § 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation in interstate air transportation to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is requi_ed if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. (b) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation to passengers in foreign air transportation who are denied boarding involuntarily at a U.S. airport from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is requi_ed if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. (c) Carriers may offer free or _educed rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if - (1) The value of the transportation benefit offe_ed, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or _educed rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise requi_ed; (2) The carrier fully informs the passenger of the amount of cash/check compensation that would otherwise be due and that the passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the cash/check payment; and (3) The carrier fully discloses all material restrictions, including but not limited to, administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer, on the use of such free or _educed rate transportation before the passenger decides to give up the cash/check payment in exchange for such transportation. (See also § 250.9(c)). (d) The requirements of this section apply to passengers with “zero fare tickets.” The fare paid by these passengers for purposes of calculating denied boarding compensation shall be the lowest cash, check, or c_edit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service on that flight. (e) The Department of Transportation will review the maximum denied boarding compensation amounts prescribed in this part every two years except for the first review, which will take place in 2012 in order to put the reviews specified in this section on the same cycle as the reviews of domestic baggage liability limits specified in 14 CFR 254.6. The Department will use any increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as of July of each review year to calculate the increased maximum compensation amounts. The Department will use the following formula: (1) Current Denied Boarding Compensation limit in section 250.5(a)(2) multiplied by (a/b) rounded to the nearest $25 where:[I Removed this as superfluous] (2) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in § 250.5(a)(3) shall be twice the revised limit for § 250.5(a)(2). (3) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in paragraph (b)(2) shall be the same as the revised limit for paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the Denied Boarding Compensation limit in paragraph (b)(3) shall be twice the revised limit for paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (f) In addition to the denied boarding compensation specified in this part, a carrier shall refund all unused ancillary fees for optional services paid by a passenger who is voluntarily or involuntarily denied boarding. The carrier is not requi_ed to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation. [Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2010-0140, 76 FR 23162, Apr. 25, 2011, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2015-0104, 80 FR 30147, May 27, 2015; Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2014-0056, 81 FR 76827, Nov. 3, 2016] The relevant information being in sections a (3), and f. The maximum compensation appears to be $1,350 (citing section a (3)) HOWEVER, that does not include "ancillary fees for optional services" (citing section f). So the total amount owed can be over $1,350. | |||
| |||
"https://youtu.be/2zTJPmqZReY Just heard this on the news,united airlines overbook on purpose this time of year as a lot of people seem to cancel,3 people left voluntarily exept for this poor guy.....ridiculous" All airlines overlook, even easyjet. Be careful at Gatwick, you might tasted on the aircraft. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/20/man-tase_ed-easyjet-flight-reports-luggage-dispute | |||
"Optional services will be for things paid for such as extra leg room etc but in reality will not amount to much, certainly not the figures the other poster was claiming." Eh, the point s_ands. It can, theoretically, be more than $1,350. The real test would be checking caselaw on the subject of what consustites "ancillary services" as all the statute says is that alternate transportion doesn't count. But I'm too lazy to check the caselaw on this. | |||
"Optional services will be for things paid for such as extra leg room etc but in reality will not amount to much, certainly not the figures the other poster was claiming. Eh, the point s_ands. It can, theoretically, be more than $1,350. The real test would be checking caselaw on the subject of what consustites "ancillary services" as all the statute says is that alternate transportion doesn't count. But I'm too lazy to check the caselaw on this. "I'm happy to stand by my last comment. | |||
| |||
" You're obviously not a frequent flyer. An airline has no responsibility for a passenger missing a connection on a different airline or missing a hotel booking etc. Airlines should offer to accommodate passengers who will require overnight accommodation as a result of being bumped but The Limit of Laibility is $1350. If they have checked a bag and need to buy things, the airline can owe the passenger up to $3500. If the passenger has paid for early boarding or extra leg room they might have to refund as much as $5000 dollars. You guys could cite the relevant contract sections and legal statutes to solve this factual disagreement. But really, with companies, very often the issue isn't about what they have to do, it's about what they should do. Based on the public reaction, it would seem that they (and the authorities for that matter) didn't meet that standard. I completely agree with your sentiment. As I have said I in no way condone UA's actions, I was questioning the figures the other poster quoted as they are incorrect. I get that. But really you're both just giving opinions on the figures as I've yet to see someone actually quote relevant law or contractual regulations. Admittedly I only skimmed the thread, so I suppose the supporting information could be in there somewhere... Without wishing to elaborate, I'm speaking from knowledge of the industry. I quoted 2 relevent clauses from UA's conditions of carriage, including the Limit of Liability for denied boarding earlier in the thread. I've looked it up myself since I couldn't find it in this thread: 14 CRF 250.5: § 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation in interstate air transportation to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is requi_ed if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. (b) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation to passengers in foreign air transportation who are denied boarding involuntarily at a U.S. airport from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is requi_ed if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. (c) Carriers may offer free or _educed rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if - (1) The value of the transportation benefit offe_ed, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or _educed rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise requi_ed; (2) The carrier fully informs the passenger of the amount of cash/check compensation that would otherwise be due and that the passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the cash/check payment; and (3) The carrier fully discloses all material restrictions, including but not limited to, administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer, on the use of such free or _educed rate transportation before the passenger decides to give up the cash/check payment in exchange for such transportation. (See also § 250.9(c)). (d) The requirements of this section apply to passengers with “zero fare tickets.” The fare paid by these passengers for purposes of calculating denied boarding compensation shall be the lowest cash, check, or c_edit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service on that flight. (e) The Department of Transportation will review the maximum denied boarding compensation amounts prescribed in this part every two years except for the first review, which will take place in 2012 in order to put the reviews specified in this section on the same cycle as the reviews of domestic baggage liability limits specified in 14 CFR 254.6. The Department will use any increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as of July of each review year to calculate the increased maximum compensation amounts. The Department will use the following formula: (1) Current Denied Boarding Compensation limit in section 250.5(a)(2) multiplied by (a/b) rounded to the nearest $25 where:[I Removed this as superfluous] (2) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in § 250.5(a)(3) shall be twice the revised limit for § 250.5(a)(2). (3) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in paragraph (b)(2) shall be the same as the revised limit for paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the Denied Boarding Compensation limit in paragraph (b)(3) shall be twice the revised limit for paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (f) In addition to the denied boarding compensation specified in this part, a carrier shall refund all unused ancillary fees for optional services paid by a passenger who is voluntarily or involuntarily denied boarding. The carrier is not requi_ed to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation. [Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2010-0140, 76 FR 23162, Apr. 25, 2011, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2015-0104, 80 FR 30147, May 27, 2015; Doc. No. DOT-OST- 2014-0056, 81 FR 76827, Nov. 3, 2016] The relevant information being in sections a (3), and f. The maximum compensation appears to be $1,350 (citing section a (3)) HOWEVER, that does not include "ancillary fees for optional services" (citing section f). So the total amount owed can be over $1,350." Fuckinhell | |||
| |||
| |||
"I remember taking up the offer of being offloaded once,that was before we actually got on the plane however! Dozy idiot's didn't offload my suitcase though did they,that had a nice flight without me!" I've seen an aircraft refused airspace access for that (carrying luggage belonging to an offloaded passenger) and turned back to it's destination. That's a major fuck up these days. | |||
"They're dragging up dirt on the guy now." They are, it appears he is not quite the gentle doctor we were led to believe! He sounds quite a grubby little man. | |||
"They're dragging up dirt on the guy now. They are, it appears he is not quite the gentle doctor we were led to believe! He sounds quite a grubby little man. " Whats the mans personality got do with him getting dragged off a plane? | |||
"They're dragging up dirt on the guy now. They are, it appears he is not quite the gentle doctor we were led to believe! He sounds quite a grubby little man. Whats the mans personality got do with him getting dragged off a plane? " No doubt the airline's publicity department dragging up shit on the guy to make them look 'not as bad' for kicking him off.
The other passengers said he did nothing wrong. His past is irrelevant. | |||
"They're dragging up dirt on the guy now. They are, it appears he is not quite the gentle doctor we were led to believe! He sounds quite a grubby little man. Whats the mans personality got do with him getting dragged off a plane? No doubt the airline's publicity department dragging up shit on the guy to make them look 'not as bad' for kicking him off.
The other passengers said he did nothing wrong. His past is irrelevant. "Correct carrot.....that looks weird,you are right(better) | |||
| |||
"Was on the news today that the boss of united airlines has apologised for it, seems that the publicity has got to them. " One point three billion knocked off the company's value, might have helped! | |||
| |||
"Was on the news today that the boss of united airlines has apologised for it, seems that the publicity has got to them. One point three billion knocked off the company's value, might have helped! "Yep! They haven't come out of this well on any front. | |||
| |||
"They're dragging up dirt on the guy now. They are, it appears he is not quite the gentle doctor we were led to believe! He sounds quite a grubby little man. " Nothing. Allegedly he is a sweet old man who was bullied. He probably could have avoided this though - poor judgement on his part not leaving when told by the police. Maybe his anger management issues that are being reported clouded his judgement. I am sure the courts will get to the bottom of it. | |||
" His past is irrelevant. " Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. | |||
"it started all because 4 company staff wanted seat and this guy had a allocated seat and then was told to get off because of the staff wanting seats" They didn't just want the seats for frivolous reasons though. They had to get to another flight to work. If they didn't get there then hund_eds more people would be inconvenienced. Piss off 4 people or piss off hund_eds? Hmmmmm Only it back fi_ed and they seem to have pissed off the whole entire world | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. " Did they know his background before they publicly humiliated him? | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. Did they know his background before they publicly humiliated him?" Unlikely that they did in my opinion. As you say his past is irrelevant. | |||
| |||
| |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. " So they did a quick background check on all passenegers before picking him to throw off did they? It;s totally irrelevant | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. So they did a quick background check on all passenegers before picking him to throw off did they? It;s totally irrelevant" Correct | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. " they would not have known that.... and it would not have been part of the choosing criteria... so would not be admissable in any lawsuit it feel like a bit of a smear job a company would put out to try and lessen the damage done | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. they would not have known that.... and it would not have been part of the choosing criteria... so would not be admissable in any lawsuit it feel like a bit of a smear job a company would put out to try and lessen the damage done" | |||
"https://youtu.be/2zTJPmqZReY Just heard this on the news,united airlines overbook on purpose this time of year as a lot of people seem to cancel,3 people left voluntarily exept for this poor guy.....ridiculous" Saw the video..absoultely disgusting teeatment | |||
"He's now hi_ed a team of lawyer's,he's still in hospital." I bet the lawyers weee at the hospital waiting for him, probably chased the ambulance there! Bunch of blood sucking vultures smell profit | |||
"He's now hi_ed a team of lawyer's,he's still in hospital. I bet the lawyers weee at the hospital waiting for him, probably chased the ambulance there! Bunch of blood sucking vultures smell profit "I'm sure the company can afford it | |||
" His past is irrelevant. Not quite true. It is very relevant in determining the type of person they are dealing with. Admittedly according to the reports he has served his time for drug dealing patient sexual abuse. He is probably reformed though. they would not have known that.... and it would not have been part of the choosing criteria... so would not be admissable in any lawsuit it feel like a bit of a smear job a company would put out to try and lessen the damage done" I mean it is relevant when it goes to court. His past will be dug up. Anyway it appears today the Daily Mail are incorrect... but we shall see. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"so we find out today in a presser that the man who was the victim of this ended up with a broken nose, concussion and his 2 front teeth knocked out..... man he is gonna get paid... that lawsuit will be epic" | |||
| |||
"I haven't heard the story yet,but it sounds bloody annoying!" Especially as plane had already taken off. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? " I'd counter that with how he was able to book himself onto an overbooked flight in the first place?.. If it wasn't overbooked at the TIME of HIM booking it, then he has a legitimate right to be on the plane. HOWEVER... | |||
" Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? I'd counter that with how he was able to book himself onto an overbooked flight in the first place?.. If it wasn't overbooked at the TIME of HIM booking it, then he has a legitimate right to be on the plane. HOWEVER... " Not according to the terms and conditions of the ticket | |||
" Playing devil's advocate, when asked to leave the male obviously refused. We're the company supposed to just sit on the Perry track for hours and hours doing nothing? I'd counter that with how he was able to book himself onto an overbooked flight in the first place?.. If it wasn't overbooked at the TIME of HIM booking it, then he has a legitimate right to be on the plane. HOWEVER... Not according to the terms and conditions of the ticket " but the irony is that it was not overbooked as such.... it only ended up being overbooked because united had to get on 4 for there own flight crew on that flight to do a follow on flight from louisville the following morning.... so if i was the mans laywer....i'd love to see what the initial offer of settlement from united is... and then tell tham to come back when the stick a few 0's on it... the only people loving this more than the comedic wags on twitter are the PR people at pepsi cause it got them off the hook! and they are probably saying "least we didn't bungle it like them!!!" | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" The staff were confirmed passengers so the flight was officially overbooked " Someone has MAJORLY fucked up. This bloke is going to take them to the cleaners and out the back door. | |||
| |||
"Just heard on the news that this Dr guy has stated that being dragged off the flight was more horrifying than his experiences in the Vietnam war. Someone's milking it a little bit me thinks "I imagine he's being encouraged. If it had happened to me (and I'll say now if I was in my seat on an aircraft that I'd paid for and they asked me to get off because they'd overbooked I would say no) I think I would be traumatised. Being hauled out of my seat and dragged down the aisle by my arms would have left a lasting impression. But comparable to being in Vietnam during the war? I'm not so sure. | |||
"Just heard on the news that this Dr guy has stated that being dragged off the flight was more horrifying than his experiences in the Vietnam war. Someone's milking it a little bit me thinks
I imagine he's being encouraged.
If it had happened to me (and I'll say now if I was in my seat on an aircraft that I'd paid for and they asked me to get off because they'd overbooked I would say no) I think I would be traumatised. Being hauled out of my seat and dragged down the aisle by my arms would have left a lasting impression. But comparable to being in Vietnam during the war? I'm not so sure."Poor man had teeth smashed out of his mouth and suffe_ed a concussion, its hard to judge somebody else's experience of a situation but my god that was pretty darn brutal... | |||
"Just heard on the news that this Dr guy has stated that being dragged off the flight was more horrifying than his experiences in the Vietnam war. Someone's milking it a little bit me thinks
I imagine he's being encouraged.
If it had happened to me (and I'll say now if I was in my seat on an aircraft that I'd paid for and they asked me to get off because they'd overbooked I would say no) I think I would be traumatised. Being hauled out of my seat and dragged down the aisle by my arms would have left a lasting impression. But comparable to being in Vietnam during the war? I'm not so sure.
Poor man had teeth smashed out of his mouth and suffe_ed a concussion, its hard to judge somebody else's experience of a situation but my god that was pretty darn brutal... "Not to mention massively humiliating. | |||
"Just heard on the news that this Dr guy has stated that being dragged off the flight was more horrifying than his experiences in the Vietnam war. Someone's milking it a little bit me thinks
I imagine he's being encouraged.
If it had happened to me (and I'll say now if I was in my seat on an aircraft that I'd paid for and they asked me to get off because they'd overbooked I would say no) I think I would be traumatised. Being hauled out of my seat and dragged down the aisle by my arms would have left a lasting impression. But comparable to being in Vietnam during the war? I'm not so sure.
Poor man had teeth smashed out of his mouth and suffe_ed a concussion, its hard to judge somebody else's experience of a situation but my god that was pretty darn brutal...
Not to mention massively humiliating."i was going to say...... it might be a bit dramatic... but the fact the dude is now going to have to have some sort of reconstructive surgery isn't a walk in the park either..... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Anyone surprised that it's being milked? Heaps more bad PR into United Airlines, increases the sum that will eventually be paid to have him go away quietly, and it's just what happens in a lawsuit crazy place. How many here have never milked an accident compensation claim (if you've ever made one) to increase a potential payout? " Amazing the amount of people who realise they have whiplash the day after their 2mph fender bender. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? " No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account." Are you saying he should have meekly complied? | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account." They just never offe_ed enough! They have a $1000 limit if they had gone higher they would have found someone else to take up the offer | |||
"as a general aside... i hate flying united anyway.... If i am going to fly i go american or virgin first... then ba... then delta..." I think most of the world will too! Great training exercise for other companies | |||
| |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? " I completely agree with this. If people weren't willing to voluntarily give up their seats for the offe_ed amount of money, it makes you wonder why, since a cash incentive is usually enough to get someone to give up a seat. In all likelihood, the next available plane to the destination was probably ages away, and the amount they were offering wasn't compensation enough for people to volunteer the inconvenience. UA needed the seats for their crew on another flight. They made the mistake of not having seats for them, and then made the further mistake of not rectifying before people were boarded on the plane. They should have offe_ed more money to make up for the inconvenience - similar to an auction, I'm sure someone would have taken the offer for the right price. Instead they used force to strongarm the situation (probably because they thought it would be less expensive for the company). And security personnel in the US are always willing to use more force and intimidation than is strictly necessary. The airline made a bad customer service and PR move. Security may have used an illegal level of force and at least one guard may have gone against policy. I hope the guy affected milks it for what its worth. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? I completely agree with this. If people weren't willing to voluntarily give up their seats for the offe_ed amount of money, it makes you wonder why, since a cash incentive is usually enough to get someone to give up a seat. In all likelihood, the next available plane to the destination was probably ages away, and the amount they were offering wasn't compensation enough for people to volunteer the inconvenience. UA needed the seats for their crew on another flight. They made the mistake of not having seats for them, and then made the further mistake of not rectifying before people were boarded on the plane. They should have offe_ed more money to make up for the inconvenience - similar to an auction, I'm sure someone would have taken the offer for the right price. Instead they used force to strongarm the situation (probably because they thought it would be less expensive for the company). And security personnel in the US are always willing to use more force and intimidation than is strictly necessary. The airline made a bad customer service and PR move. Security may have used an illegal level of force and at least one guard may have gone against policy. I hope the guy affected milks it for what its worth. "This..... | |||
"Without having read all of the posts, I may be repeating what others may have said.. Airlines are a law unto themselves, they are allowed to oversell a flight, for all intents, selling a service they cannot provide. This is an agreed practice by the CAA. Usually in these situations, the airline will announce before boarding that the flight is overbooked and offer an incentive to passengers to fly on a later flight.. All voluntary and no issues, everyone ends up happy.. This situation is unprecedented and has shown American as a bully.. I can see a potential case being brought against the airlines and CAA with the outcome being it is unlawful to oversell.. Ultimately, this will mean yet another price rise for air travel. It doesn't change the fact that the actions of the airline and airport security staff was disproportionate and extremely disturbing. " The CAA is the UK regulator and therefore has no Authority over United Airlines. IATA is the world wide regulator of airlines. Airlines oversell seats because certain seats are fully flexible, that is the are changeable and fully refundable. These seats tend to be the dearest in their cabin and are popular with business travellers as they are not tied to their booked travel itinerary should their plans change. Airlines factor a certain number of 'no shows' into their loading numbers but occassionally everyone shows up, resulting in an overbooking situation. There is no chance of this practice changing as a result of the UA incident. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive descission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. Are you saying he should have meekly complied?" I completely disagree with level of force used. As for the meekly aspect? Well there had to be some form of resolution. The aircraft wasn't leaving with its current figure of passengers. A random method was used to select someone. Everyday the public is happy with someone else being penalised or selected. As long as it's not them? Sadly I believe if he had accepted that it was his turn to be inconvenienced then it wouldn't have escalated. Was there another solution I'm unaware of? | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive vdescission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. Are you saying he should have meekly complied? I completely disagree with level of force used. As for the meekly aspect? Well there had to be some form of resolution. The aircraft wasn't leaving with its current figure of passengers. A random method was used to select someone. Everyday the public is happy with someone else being penalised or selected. As long as it's not them? Sadly I believe if he had accepted that it was his turn to be inconvenienced then it wouldn't have escalated. Was there another solution I'm unaware of? " Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for the next flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive vdescission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. Are you saying he should have meekly complied? I completely disagree with level of force used. As for the meekly aspect? Well there had to be some form of resolution. The aircraft wasn't leaving with its current figure of passengers. A random method was used to select someone. Everyday the public is happy with someone else being penalised or selected. As long as it's not them? Sadly I believe if he had accepted that it was his turn to be inconvenienced then it wouldn't have escalated. Was there another solution I'm unaware of? Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for the next flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault." I'm sure I'm repeating what's been said somewhere above, but I imagine he was offe_ed compensation. I've been offe_ed £1200 to delay my flight to the following day. The airline clearly made a mistake, but the aircraft couldn't take off with excess people on board? I guess I would have said ok, if that's your rules, I'm on your aircraft I'll get off? The unpublished footage in the mainstream of his protests prior to the events haven't been ai_ed as much. Maybe his position and stance would have been listened to with more empathy and a different outcome had he also acted differently? | |||
" Was there another solution I'm unaware of? Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault. I'm sure I'm repeating what's been said somewhere above, but I imagine he was offe_ed compensation. I've been offe_ed £1200 to delay my flight to the following day. The airline clearly made a mistake, but the aircraft couldn't take off with excess people on board? I guess I would have said ok, if that's your rules, I'm on your aircraft I'll get off? The unpublished footage in the mainstream of his protests prior to the events haven't been ai_ed as much. Maybe his position and stance would have been listened to with more empathy and a different outcome had he also acted differently?" Possibly, but we will never know. As you say it was badly handled. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether he should have complied with their request or not. | |||
" The unpublished footage in the mainstream of his protests prior to the events haven't been ai_ed as much. Maybe his position and stance would have been listened to with more empathy and a different outcome had he also acted differently?" Unless he was being abusive, then nothing excuses how the airline staff handled the situation. As it looks like the airline will be settling out of court for million(s), it would appear he wasn't acting in a way that deserved that kind of treatment. | |||
" Was there another solution I'm unaware of? Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault. I'm sure I'm repeating what's been said somewhere above, but I imagine he was offe_ed compensation. I've been offe_ed £1200 to delay my flight to the following day. The airline clearly made a mistake, but the aircraft couldn't take off with excess people on board? I guess I would have said ok, if that's your rules, I'm on your aircraft I'll get off? The unpublished footage in the mainstream of his protests prior to the events haven't been ai_ed as much. Maybe his position and stance would have been listened to with more empathy and a different outcome had he also acted differently? Possibly, but we will never know. As you say it was badly handled. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether he should have complied with their request or not." Airlines' Conditions of Carriage state that your seat is not guaranteed! The airline has ente_ed a contract to get you from A to B but not guaranteeing the seats on a particular aircraft. Once aboard, the pilot is in command ( much the same way as a ship's captain) and if he/she requests a passenger to disembark, the passenger is breaking the law by refusing to do so. That's why security were called and UA were acting legally up to that point. What ensued is was a huge PR disaster for UA and as I've said earlier will be a bonanza for the lawyers. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive vdescission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. Are you saying he should have meekly complied? I completely disagree with level of force used. As for the meekly aspect? Well there had to be some form of resolution. The aircraft wasn't leaving with its current figure of passengers. A random method was used to select someone. Everyday the public is happy with someone else being penalised or selected. As long as it's not them? Sadly I believe if he had accepted that it was his turn to be inconvenienced then it wouldn't have escalated. Was there another solution I'm unaware of? Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for the next flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault."
The airline has now refunded everyone on the flight. | |||
"The flight was fully booked, I'm bettering someone descided too late that they needed to get crew to anaither airport and wanted 4 seats on that plane but they had already filled it. Now they offe_ed money for volunteers as is normal but thier policy is only up to $1000. So instead of making an executive vdescission and upping the offer to someone else they tried to force him to comply. Big fuck up!!! And the fact that he was an older Asian passenger is going to be a big lever in this case. If might have cost them $2000 and an overnight stay in the hotel but would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. What ever happened to keeping customers happy so they reccomend you're service ? No they offe_ed every one the chance of compensation if the agreed to get off the flight. No one took it up. As a consequence they randomly picked a passenger sat number as the fairest way. Would he have remonstrated if it had been another seat? It wasn't proportionate but as usual the media selects only the parts of the story that lines their pockets...not provide a factual full account. Are you saying he should have meekly complied? I completely disagree with level of force used. As for the meekly aspect? Well there had to be some form of resolution. The aircraft wasn't leaving with its current figure of passengers. A random method was used to select someone. Everyday the public is happy with someone else being penalised or selected. As long as it's not them? Sadly I believe if he had accepted that it was his turn to be inconvenienced then it wouldn't have escalated. Was there another solution I'm unaware of? Yes, they could have offe_ed enough compensation to make it worth someone's while to wait overnight for the next flight. I can't see how its any fault of this man and I truly can't see why he should have accepted inconvenience. Mistakes were made and not one of them were his fault." Ab So fucking lutely. How on earth anyone can even begin to contemplate that it's the passengers fault/responsibility is totally beyond me. The airline screwed up, from beginning to end. If they were overbooked, which I understand is common practice, none of the passengers should never been allowed on board until it was resolved and alternative arrangements/compensations mutually agreed. I'm inclined to think I'd have passively refused to get off the plane too. Also, I believe once boarded and loaded, they wouldn't have been able to get his luggage out of the cargo hold, which wouldn't have been an issue if they'd resolved the problem before boarding. | |||
