The United Airlines incident.

[crazed_hoosier2]

I get why United is taking such a PR drubbing over this -- particularly upon learning that 4 of the passengers on that flight who weren't forced to surrender their seats were United employees.

But I have to say that I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for the passenger. First and foremost, right or wrong he was asked -- and then ordered -- to deplane. Airlines (and, in particular, the captain...who has ultimate authority over everything that happens on an aircraft) have the right to do this -- passengers do not have the right to refuse. And when a passenger refuses to follow the captain's order to leave, it seems like contacting law enforcement is the appropriate course of action.

Second, I don't care for him pulling out the whole "I'm a doctor" thing. Was he saying that his trip to Louisville was urgent, possibly even a matter of life and death? Or was he just trying to make that implication to try to get them to inconvenience somebody else? Otherwise, what does his occupation have to do with anything?

It's a shame that the whole ordeal had to escalate to violence. The airline is certainly not blameless here -- overbooking the flight and, then, choosing a paying passenger to deplane rather than one of their freebie employees.

But nobody is more responsible for the incident escalating to what it did than that passenger was. If you're ordered off a plane, even if you think it's wholly unfair, get off the damn plane.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

BTW, the FT has a decent primer on the practice of overbooking (yes, it's intentional....and, according to this piece, economically practical, if not necessary).

In 2015, a ticketed traveler had a 0.09% chance to be denied boarding -- which seems like a decent enough batting average.

Also, I've always resisted the temptation to accept a travel voucher to go on a later flight. From what I understand, they typically expire worthless within a year and, even then, only valid against the full retail fare. Usually, if they can't get takers for the travel voucher, they'll offer cash. Last I heard, cash never expires and doesn't have any blackout dates.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I get why United is taking such a PR drubbing over this -- particularly upon learning that 4 of the passengers on that flight who weren't forced to surrender their seats were United employees.

But I have to say that I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for the passenger. First and foremost, right or wrong he was asked -- and then ordered -- to deplane. Airlines (and, in particular, the captain...who has ultimate authority over everything that happens on an aircraft) have the right to do this -- passengers do not have the right to refuse. And when a passenger refuses to follow the captain's order to leave, it seems like contacting law enforcement is the appropriate course of action.

Second, I don't care for him pulling out the whole "I'm a doctor" thing. Was he saying that his trip to Louisville was urgent, possibly even a matter of life and death? Or was he just trying to make that implication to try to get them to inconvenience somebody else? Otherwise, what does his occupation have to do with anything?

It's a shame that the whole ordeal had to escalate to violence. The airline is certainly not blameless here -- overbooking the flight and, then, choosing a paying passenger to deplane rather than one of their freebie employees.

But nobody is more responsible for the incident escalating to what it did than that passenger was. If you're ordered off a plane, even if you think it's wholly unfair, get off the damn plane.

I'm with UAL on this one. I understand that the airline employees involved was another crew who had to get to Louisville to staff another flight. The airlines time their crews and planes so tightly that any glitch in the system quickly cascades into pandemonium. There are very strict rules about how many hours in a day an airline crew could work.

The passenger was a real dipshit. It's only a five hour or so drive from Chicago to Louisville, he would have been home by evening had he complied. UAL had paid I think $1,000 to each passenger plus a free ride at a future time. The passenger was a spoiled self-referential brat. He thought he was more important than any other passenger. His yelling and screaming at the security guys was breathtaking. I think it is even money he is not even an M.D. but if he is I wouldn't want him anywhere near me in the case of an emergency or other unexpected event. Maybe he is a clinical psychologist, that would explain a lot.

UAL could have upped the ante for departing passengers. At some point they would have had some takers. I probably could have been bought for, say, $2,000 plus first class airfare in the future. Paying an extra 4 G's or so seems like a pittance compared to the fallout they have from this.

FWIW, my stoker, who was just caught up in the Delta melt-down for 48 hours sympathized with the passenger.

 

[Univee2]

I get why United is taking such a PR drubbing over this -- particularly upon learning that 4 of the passengers on that flight who weren't forced to surrender their seats were United employees.

But I have to say that I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for the passenger. First and foremost, right or wrong he was asked -- and then ordered -- to deplane. Airlines (and, in particular, the captain...who has ultimate authority over everything that happens on an aircraft) have the right to do this -- passengers do not have the right to refuse. And when a passenger refuses to follow the captain's order to leave, it seems like contacting law enforcement is the appropriate course of action.

Second, I don't care for him pulling out the whole "I'm a doctor" thing. Was he saying that his trip to Louisville was urgent, possibly even a matter of life and death? Or was he just trying to make that implication to try to get them to inconvenience somebody else? Otherwise, what does his occupation have to do with anything?

It's a shame that the whole ordeal had to escalate to violence. The airline is certainly not blameless here -- overbooking the flight and, then, choosing a paying passenger to deplane rather than one of their freebie employees.

But nobody is more responsible for the incident escalating to what it did than that passenger was. If you're ordered off a plane, even if you think it's wholly unfair, get off the damn plane.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

In The Big Book of PR Blunders, this incident and United's response will figure prominently. Go to Real Clear Politics and read the opinion piece by Investor's Business Daily, United Airlines Flunks Economics 101.

Up the offer until someone finally accepts, walk away happy and forget about the possibility of millions of dollars in lost goodwill.

Heads will roll. Millions lost. Someone will pass a law in a fit of government ham-handedness. Only a few thousand dollars more would have prevented this. Stupidity and short-sightedness reigns.

"Can anyone here play this game?"

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm with UAL on this one. I understand that the airline employees involved was another crew who had to get to Louisville to staff another flight. The airlines time their crews and planes so tightly that any glitch in the system quickly cascades into pandemonium. There are very strict rules about how many hours in a day an airline crew could work.

The passenger was a real dipshit. It's only a five hour or so drive from Chicago to Louisville, he would have been home by evening had he complied. UAL had paid I think $1,000 to each passenger plus a free ride at a future time. The passenger was a spoiled self-referential brat. He thought he was more important than any other passenger. His yelling and screaming at the security guys was breathtaking. I think it is even money he is not even an M.D. but if he is I wouldn't want him anywhere near me in the case of an emergency or other unexpected event. Maybe he is a clinical psychologist, that would explain a lot.

UAL could have upped the ante for departing passengers. At some point they would have had some takers. I probably could have been bought for, say, $2,000 plus first class airfare in the future. Paying an extra 4 G's or so seems like a pittance compared to the fallout they have from this.

FWIW, my stoker, who was just caught up in the Delta melt-down for 48 hours sympathized with the passenger.

He is a Doctor, or I should say, is again after having once lost his license to practice. United needed to keep upping the offer, this is going to cost them far more. Heck, I'll be curious to see if it starts a snowball toward laws on overbooking. Reminds me of the Seinfeld car rental, anyone can take a reservation.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

In The Big Book of PR Blunders, this incident and United's response will figure prominently. Go to Real Clear Politics and read the opinion piece by Investor's Business Daily, United Airlines Flunks Economics 101.

Up the offer until someone finally accepts, walk away happy and forget about the possibility of millions of dollars in lost goodwill.

Heads will roll. Millions lost. Someone will pass a law in a fit of government ham-handedness. Only a few thousand dollars more would have prevented this. Stupidity and short-sightedness reigns.

"Can anyone here play this game?"

I get all that. But surely you realize that nobody directly involved in this incident had any authority to do this. What are they supposed to do...call the CEO and ask permission to sweeten the pot until somebody bites? For better or worse, they had a script of company policies that they had to follow. I'm not necessarily defending those policies (though overbooking policies are actually regulated). But I am saying that the United employees who carried this out were obligated to follow them.

So...what of the passenger in question? To me, I think he's getting off way too easy in all of this -- probably, I'd guess, because we can all sympathize with his grievance. I've never been bumped from a flight. But I can certainly say that I'd be none too happy about it if I were...regardless of the circumstances.

That said, I don't think there's any defense for his defiance. I agree that it never should've escalated to what it did. But, ultimately, nobody is more to blame for that than he is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

He is a Doctor, or I should say, is again after having once lost his license to practice. United needed to keep upping the offer, this is going to cost them far more. Heck, I'll be curious to see if it starts a snowball toward laws on overbooking. Reminds me of the Seinfeld car rental, anyone can take a reservation.

I'm guessing you (and perhaps Univee?) didn't read the FT piece I linked.

A) We already have a law about overbooking.
B) That law caps the compensation at $1,350.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He is a Doctor, or I should say, is again after having once lost his license to practice. United needed to keep upping the offer, this is going to cost them far more. Heck, I'll be curious to see if it starts a snowball toward laws on overbooking. Reminds me of the Seinfeld car rental, anyone can take a reservation.

We don't need any more laws. Let the free market handle this. The market price for overbooking and asking passengers to surrender their seats just went up for all the airlines.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

He is a Doctor, or I should say, is again after having once lost his license to practice. United needed to keep upping the offer, this is going to cost them far more. Heck, I'll be curious to see if it starts a snowball toward laws on overbooking. Reminds me of the Seinfeld car rental, anyone can take a reservation.

One other comment on this re: overbooking. Clearly, the reason airlines do it is because they're playing the odds to get the optimum economics out of a route. People miss flights -- regularly. Again, from the FT piece:

According to EU documents, the statistical chance of all passengers with a valid ticket checking in on time is less than 1 in 10,000 at best.
​

That creates a real conundrum for airlines, obviously. Now, you can certainly argue that the practice of overbooking should be more tightly restricted. But that's clearly a "be careful what you wish for" kind of bargain. Such a thing would almost certainly result in net higher fares.

 

[Standard Issue]

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

In The Big Book of PR Blunders, this incident and United's response will figure prominently. Go to Real Clear Politics and read the opinion piece by Investor's Business Daily, United Airlines Flunks Economics 101.

Up the offer until someone finally accepts, walk away happy and forget about the possibility of millions of dollars in lost goodwill.

Heads will roll. Millions lost. Someone will pass a law in a fit of government ham-handedness. Only a few thousand dollars more would have prevented this. Stupidity and short-sightedness reigns.

"Can anyone here play this game?"

I believe I just saw where their market cap was down $750 million. That will probably bounce back but there will be consequences at least in the short term.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We don't need any more laws. Let the free market handle this. The market price for overbooking and asking passengers to surrender their seats just went up for all the airlines.

Compensation for being bumped is already capped by current law.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We don't need any more laws. Let the free market handle this. The market price for overbooking and asking passengers to surrender their seats just went up for all the airlines.

We just need to adjust the law that caps the compensation up to 1.5 billion dollars. That will solve the problem, and add no new law.

I don't know about this guy. Like I assume most of us, sometimes I travel and have extra time that I wouldn't object to a delay, and heck, might easily volunteer. There are other times I travel where I have no leeway in my schedule. If you are going to bump me a day, the whole purpose of my trip is gone. The problem with the systems is they don't have a way to differentiate. And in this case, they let people board. That was a mistake. Once people take a seat, they take ownership of it. That makes this far more difficult. United screwed up here. This guy may be a total jerk, but this is a major disaster for United.

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm guessing you (and perhaps Univee?) didn't read the FT piece I linked.

A) We already have a law about overbooking.
B) That law caps the compensation at $1,350.

So? What enforcement of that law would there be if an airline decides paying more is in its best interests?

That might be the cap if I were to sue, but it's not the cap for an agreed settlement.

In fact, there was a story on one of the TV networks the night of this incident about a travel blogger who got Delta to pay her and her family $11,000 not to fly to Florida during spring break: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurab...-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#47f6b7e84de1.

 

[hootch1]

United had the right to remove the passenger.They did it in the worst way possible. They should have continued increasing the payout. Even if there is only a short-term impact, the brand damage will be magnitudes more than than cost for a volunteer. And their CEO did not help with his comments. I understand supporting your employees, but the public will side with the passenger. In some circumstances, because they have been bumped, missed a flight connection, had damaged luggage. Airlines have a overall positive rating by consumers, but they are not that far above banks.

I have been flying recently. Almost every flight was packed. One flight was half empty. I asked the flight attendant why it was so empty. They had a maintenance swap or the plane would have been full. In San Jose, they were telling people at 7:30 AM that did not think they could get them on a flight out that day.

As airlines decrease capacity, they may need to update their overbooking algorithms.

Just looked at JD Powers rankings of airlines. United is at the bottom.

Added last line

 

[bawlmer]

I get why United is taking such a PR drubbing over this -- particularly upon learning that 4 of the passengers on that flight who weren't forced to surrender their seats were United employees.

But I have to say that I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for the passenger. First and foremost, right or wrong he was asked -- and then ordered -- to deplane. Airlines (and, in particular, the captain...who has ultimate authority over everything that happens on an aircraft) have the right to do this -- passengers do not have the right to refuse. And when a passenger refuses to follow the captain's order to leave, it seems like contacting law enforcement is the appropriate course of action.

Second, I don't care for him pulling out the whole "I'm a doctor" thing. Was he saying that his trip to Louisville was urgent, possibly even a matter of life and death? Or was he just trying to make that implication to try to get them to inconvenience somebody else? Otherwise, what does his occupation have to do with anything?

It's a shame that the whole ordeal had to escalate to violence. The airline is certainly not blameless here -- overbooking the flight and, then, choosing a paying passenger to deplane rather than one of their freebie employees.

But nobody is more responsible for the incident escalating to what it did than that passenger was. If you're ordered off a plane, even if you think it's wholly unfair, get off the damn plane.

I feel a lot of sympathy for the passenger. Once you've boarded the plane, being singled-out and told to leave is humiliating and seems arbitrary. I experienced a very similar situation occur on a plane and no explanation was given to the guy they asked to leave. He turned down their initial cash offer and told them to double it. They came back and said okay. I don't think he got the cap, though.

If the rules for being bumped were clear, and they were enforced before passengers board the plane, then the airlines would seem somewhat more reasonable.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So? What enforcement of that law would there be if an airline decides paying more is in its best interests?

That might be the cap if I were to sue, but it's not the cap for an agreed settlement.

In fact, there was a story on one of the TV networks the night of this incident about a travel blogger who got Delta to pay her and her family $11,000 not to fly to Florida during spring break: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurab...-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#47f6b7e84de1.

Don't take it up with me, Sope. I'm the resident free market guy around here. If it were up to me, I'm pretty sure I'd erase that law and just about any other one which creates such artificial restrictions...be it on airlines or most other kinds of commercial endeavor.

Again, I'm NOT so much defending United here as I am wondering why the passenger is being treated as some kind of victim. He's really not -- it was his own defiance and intransigence which led to the physical confrontation.

Now, I have pointed out the obvious here: which is that the United employees who dealt with this had absolutely no authority to go beyond company policy. People make it sound as if the company executives were directly involved here and, as such, could've authorized anything and everything to get somebody to voluntarily give up their seat. With that in mind (in addition to the statutory cap), I'm not terribly moved by the argument that United should've just kept upping the ante.

They certainly should've resolved the overbooking before anybody boarded. That much seems clear.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I feel a lot of sympathy for the passenger. Once you've boarded the plane, being singled-out and told to leave is humiliating and seems arbitrary. I experienced a very similar situation occur on a plane and no explanation was given to the guy they asked to leave. He turned down their initial cash offer and told them to double it. They came back and said okay. I don't think he got the cap, though.

If the rules for being bumped were clear, and they were enforced before passengers board the plane, then the airlines would seem somewhat more reasonable.

Well, I certainly agree that this should've been resolved before anybody was allowed to board the plane. In fact, every single overbooking situation I've encountered was handled that way. I'm not sure why this one wasn't -- though I suspect they'd say that they were hurrying to meet schedule.

That said, when you are ordered by the captain to deplane, you deplane. I don't care if it's humiliating or unfair or whatever. You don't sit there and refuse to move the way he did.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We just need to adjust the law that caps the compensation up to 1.5 billion dollars. That will solve the problem, and add no new law.

I don't know about this guy. Like I assume most of us, sometimes I travel and have extra time that I wouldn't object to a delay, and heck, might easily volunteer. There are other times I travel where I have no leeway in my schedule. If you are going to bump me a day, the whole purpose of my trip is gone. The problem with the systems is they don't have a way to differentiate. And in this case, they let people board. That was a mistake. Once people take a seat, they take ownership of it. That makes this far more difficult. United screwed up here. This guy may be a total jerk, but this is a major disaster for United.

The most important thing in life is coping skills. We are losing that important ability. Evidence of this is everywhere. People can't cope with what they see, hear, touch, know, what happens to them, who wins elections, or bad driving. It isn't just road rage, it's rage about everything. That rage resulted in yesterday's school shooting.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

United had the right to remove the passenger.

Yes, they did. In fact, the captain has pretty much authoritarian control over what happens on his aircraft.

They did it in the worst way possible.

Well, they never should've let the man board. On that, I certainly agree. But, beyond that, I'm not sure what else they should've done differently in terms of removing him. He was refusing to follow the captain's order. At that point, I suspect they pretty much have no choice but to involve law enforcement. And what exactly would we expect to happen to anybody who resists law enforcement's orders?

They should have continued increasing the payout.

Let me tell you: if one of my employees took it upon themselves to go outside of company policy (let alone law), I'm pretty sure they'd be fired pretty quickly.....even, perhaps, if I understood why they chose to.

I don't know how many more times it can be said: the people dealing with this for United had a script to follow. They didn't have the authority to go beyond it.

Even if there is only a short-term impact, the brand damage will be magnitudes more than than cost for a volunteer.

I'm sure the gate attendant was sitting there pondering the damage to the United brand.

the public will side with the passenger.

Not this member of the public. In fact, I don't really "side" with either party here. I think they were both in the wrong.

As airlines decrease capacity, they may need to update their overbooking algorithms.

Once again, the FT piece put this into perspective.

In the US, which provides the best statistics on this matter, the number of people denied boarding — both voluntary and involuntary — was 1.07m in 1999 but declined to 552,000 in 2015, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Those might sound like large numbers but the 2015 level represented only 0.09 per cent of trips taken by passengers.
​

So they've cut boarding denials in half in the last ~15 years. That's actually pretty good, I'd say.

Just looked at JD Powers rankings of airlines. United is at the bottom.

Yeah, but (a) bad incidents happen at all airlines, (b) none of them are anything to write home about, and (c) something like this could've happened at any of them....they all overbook, and they do so for a reason: while they might not always be great at holding up their end of the bargain, we passengers aren't exactly stellar in that regard.

If none of us ever failed to show up for our flights, airlines wouldn't overbook them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Let me tell you: if one of my employees took it upon themselves to go outside of company policy (let alone law), I'm pretty sure they'd be fired pretty quickly.....even, perhaps, if I understood why they chose to.

I don't know how many more times it can be said: the people dealing with this for United had a script to follow. They didn't have the authority to go beyond it.

I think Sope has it right, I think that law is in case United is sued. I don't think it caps voluntary arrangements. I am not sure though what company policy is. But frankly, a good company policy should allow the top employee at United in Chicago (one would assume whomever is in charge of a shift there has a fairly significant position) to override policy to prevent this from happening.

 

[bawlmer]

Well, I certainly agree that this should've been resolved before anybody was allowed to board the plane. In fact, every single overbooking situation I've encountered was handled that way. I'm not sure why this one wasn't -- though I suspect they'd say that they were hurrying to meet schedule.

That said, when you are ordered by the captain to deplane, you deplane. I don't care if it's humiliating or unfair or whatever. You don't sit there and refuse to move the way he did.

Not without getting an explanation why me and not the other 100 people on the plane. It's not like I'm breaking a law.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think Sope has it right, I think that law is in case United is sued. I don't think it caps voluntary arrangements. I am not sure though what company policy is. But frankly, a good company policy should allow the top employee at United in Chicago (one would assume whomever is in charge of a shift there has a fairly significant position) to override policy to prevent this from happening.

Well, you can read the text of the law for yourself here. And, are you really wanting to go down that road of allowing low-level managers at airlines to determine when they will and won't follow federal laws and regulations? Don't get me wrong...I'm *all* for allowing airlines to determine how to operate in their best interest. This is a perfect example of what I'm getting at when I say that such laws and regulations should be regularly revisited -- and that ones which are superfluous or obsolete should be sunsetted if they aren't revised or renewed.

But you can't have this both ways.

Second, we're never going to get rid of either overbooking or, less frequently, involuntary denials. I certainly agree that passengers should never have been let on the plane while there was still an unresolved overbooking.

But can you at least acknowledge that none of this excuses how this man acted?

 

[Fredrica James]

Well, you can read the text of the law for yourself here. And, are you really wanting to go down that road of allowing low-level managers at airlines to determine when they will and won't follow federal laws and regulations? Don't get me wrong...I'm *all* for allowing airlines to determine how to operate in their best interest. This is a perfect example of what I'm getting at when I say that such laws and regulations should be regularly revisited -- and that ones which are superfluous or obsolete should be sunsetted if they aren't revised or renewed.

But you can't have this both ways.

Second, we're never going to get rid of either overbooking or, less frequently, involuntary denials. I certainly agree that passengers should never have been let on the plane while there was still an unresolved overbooking.

But can you at least acknowledge that none of this excuses how this man acted?

The regulation limits any airline's liability but it doesn't preclude United or any other carrier from offering compensation beyond that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Not without getting an explanation why me and not the other 100 people on the plane. It's not like I'm breaking a law.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the passenger was breaking the law just as soon as he refused a captain's order to deplane. Again, most people might be surprised at just how much formal legal authority is vested in the PIC.

That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no explanation of "why him" would've caused him to act any differently. He was pretty dead-set that he wasn't going to get up from that seat.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The regulation limits any airline's liability but it doesn't preclude United or any other carrier from offering compensation beyond that.

Where exactly does it say that? I don't read it that way at all.

For better or worse, the language I read there can hardly be more clear -- and it establishes a firm cap. Here...I'll post the relevant language in its entirety:

§ 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 reduced 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 offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

(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 reduced 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 credit 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:

a = July CPI-U of year of current adjustment
b = the CPI-U figure in August, 2011 when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250.
(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 required to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Where exactly does it say that? I don't read it that way at all.

For better or worse, the language I read there can hardly be more clear -- and it establishes a firm cap. Here...I'll post the relevant language in its entirety:

§ 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 reduced 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 offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

(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 reduced 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 credit 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:

a = July CPI-U of year of current adjustment
b = the CPI-U figure in August, 2011 when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250.
(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 required to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation.

It says compensation shall be 400% of the fare, with the cap. By your interpretation the airline violated the law the moment it offered the lowest amount (or offered miles which they sometimes do).

 

[i'vegotwinners]

was this overbooking, or Creaning?

if UA made a conscience decision that after selling the passenger the ticket and boarding him, that they wanted that seat back because they found someone else they'd rather have the seat, that's Creaning, not overbooking.

a timeline as to when UA decided they wanted these seats back would be interesting.

on a side note, our hypocritical "free market" lovers, (shills), have certainly changed their tune fast.

a free market would have UA paying the market price for someone to voluntarily give up their seat.

capping that offer and forcing an unwilling passenger who didn't accept their offer off is "regulation", plain and simple.

just as we suspected, the shills here who spew pro free market/anti regulation propaganda all day every day, change their tune the instant the free market benefits the consumer rather than the moneyed interests, and suddenly "regulation" is great, when it benefits the moneyed interest rather than the consumer.

on another side note, UA could have easily privately flown their employees to their gig, they just found screwing a passenger to be more in their self interests.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It says compensation shall be 400% of the fare, with the cap. By your interpretation the airline violated the law the moment it offered the lowest amount (or offered miles which they sometimes do).

Well, upon further review, the language I posted only applies to involuntary denials. In an earlier part of the same law, it deals with offers for volunteers:

In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space.
​

Of course, that would also mean that the airline could offer whatever it wanted -- however large or small -- for somebody to give up their seat voluntarily. But, given the hard limit they have for an involuntary denial, it doesn't make much sense to go above and beyond this.....not, anyway, as a matter of operating policy.

 

[Fredrica James]

Where exactly does it say that? I don't read it that way at all.

For better or worse, the language I read there can hardly be more clear -- and it establishes a firm cap. Here...I'll post the relevant language in its entirety:

§ 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 reduced 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 offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

(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 reduced 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 credit 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:

a = July CPI-U of year of current adjustment
b = the CPI-U figure in August, 2011 when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250.
(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 required to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation.

That states the airline's liability / obligation, but it doesn't limit them should they elect to offer more. There is similar wording in the regulations regarding baggage claims in that it caps the carrier's obligation, but they (the airline) can always choose to compensate beyond that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

was this overbooking, or Creaning?

if UA made a conscience decision that after selling the passenger the ticket and boarding him, that they wanted that seat back because they found someone else they'd rather have the seat, that's Creaning, not overbooking.

a timeline as to when UA decided they wanted these seats back would be interesting.

on a side note, our hypocritical "free market" lovers, (shills), have certainly changed their tune fast.

a free market would have UA paying the market price for someone to voluntarily give up their seat.

capping that offer and forcing an unwilling passenger who didn't accept their offer off is "regulation", plain and simple.

just as we suspected, the shills here who spew pro free market/anti regulation propaganda all day every day, change their tune the instant the free market benefits the consumer rather than the moneyed interests, and suddenly "regulation" is great, when it benefits the moneyed interest rather than the consumer.

on another side note, UA could have easily privately flown their employees to their gig, they just found screwing a passenger to be more in their self interests.

Uh, whoa there, pardner.

One of the biggest beefs I have with regulations is that they stiff consumers. Why? Well, because guess who invests gobs of money into lobbying the regulators?

I'm most certainly not defending this reg, or any other. Again, leave it up to me and it will be gone by lunchtime....along with countless others like it.

And not because of who it does or doesn't benefit -- but because I think it's almost always a mistake to involve government in these sorts of matters. And, again, one of the biggest reasons why is because of the reality of political influence.

I have no idea where you're getting that I'm saying "regulation is great." I'm bemoaning its existence, not cheering it. I think individual people and airlines would be perfectly capable of solving these sorts of matters without Mama Government getting involved.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That states the airline's liability / obligation, but it doesn't limit them should they elect to offer more. There is similar wording in the regulations regarding baggage claims in that it caps the carrier's obligation, but they (the airline) can always choose to compensate beyond that.

Well, you're kinda right -- but not because of the language I had posted. As I just said above, there's more to the statute than the section I quoted and posted (which only comes into play for involuntary denials). You're right that airlines can offer as much or as little as they want for voluntary forfeiture. The language I posted kicks in when a volunteer can't be found and it becomes an involuntary thing (which happens roughly 40,000 times annually).

At that time, it's no longer a negotiation.

 

[76-1]

I'm with UAL on this one. I understand that the airline employees involved was another crew who had to get to Louisville to staff another flight. The airlines time their crews and planes so tightly that any glitch in the system quickly cascades into pandemonium. There are very strict rules about how many hours in a day an airline crew could work.

The passenger was a real dipshit. It's only a five hour or so drive from Chicago to Louisville, he would have been home by evening had he complied. UAL had paid I think $1,000 to each passenger plus a free ride at a future time. The passenger was a spoiled self-referential brat. He thought he was more important than any other passenger. His yelling and screaming at the security guys was breathtaking. I think it is even money he is not even an M.D. but if he is I wouldn't want him anywhere near me in the case of an emergency or other unexpected event. Maybe he is a clinical psychologist, that would explain a lot.

UAL could have upped the ante for departing passengers. At some point they would have had some takers. I probably could have been bought for, say, $2,000 plus first class airfare in the future. Paying an extra 4 G's or so seems like a pittance compared to the fallout they have from this.

FWIW, my stoker, who was just caught up in the Delta melt-down for 48 hours sympathized with the passenger.

My question is:
Why couldn't the 4 United employees just rent a car and drive on down to Louisville? Why not have them take the burden of inconvenience? If the flight they were going to crew on was the next day they had plenty of time to get down there by car.

The passenger (customer) should always come first. In the perverse world of airline overbooking and seating practices that premise is reversed. Just another reason I drive if I have time when in the CONUS!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Where exactly does it say that? I don't read it that way at all.

For better or worse, the language I read there can hardly be more clear -- and it establishes a firm cap. Here...I'll post the relevant language in its entirety:

§ 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 required 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 offersalternate 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 firststopover, 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 reduced 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 offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

(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 reduced 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 credit 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:

a = July CPI-U of year of current adjustment
b = the CPI-U figure in August, 2011 when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250.
(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 required to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger's alternate transportation.

The law can't cap private parties' agreed payments. Government simply doesn't have that authority. Once United made the mistake of allowing people to board the plane, they might have figured that a one-time payment of $5K to a single passenger would be better than the bad PR of calling the cops, and doing so would not be breaking or ignoring the law in any way.

Besides, if you want to get all anal about how the law is worded, the law is for passengers denied boarding. He wasn't denied boarding, so the cap no longer applies.

 

[Fredrica James]

Well, you're kinda right -- but not because of the language I had posted. As I just said above, there's more to the statute than the section I quoted and posted (which only comes into play for involuntary denials). You're right that airlines can offer as much or as little as they want for voluntary forfeiture. The language I posted kicks in when a volunteer can't be found and it becomes an involuntary thing (which happens roughly 40,000 times annually).

At that time, it's no longer a negotiation.

But even when it's technically involuntary, the airline can go beyond the statutory obligation, if they choose to do so.

 

[Fredrica James]

My question is:
Why couldn't the 4 United employees just rent a car and drive on down to Louisville? Why not have them take the burden of inconvenience? If the flight they were going to crew on was the next day they had plenty of time to get down there by car.

The passenger (customer) should always come first. In the perverse world of airline overbooking and seating practices that premise is reversed. Just another reason I drive if I have time when in the CONUS!

Not carrying the crew members likely would've resulted in an at least one, if not several, flight cancellations the next day. Requiring them to drive might've been in conflict with certain crew member's labor agreement with the carrier.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think this is two wrongs don't make a right. The passenger was wrong, we all know that we must follow the captain's orders. So he was wrong. United was wrong for allowing the boarding to begin with, and in my mind, for not upping the compensation. Once people boarded, this was a possibility. We may want everyone to be reasonable, but I think we all know that is a pipe dream.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

My question is:
Why couldn't the 4 United employees just rent a car and drive on down to Louisville? Why not have them take the burden of inconvenience? If the flight they were going to crew on was the next day they had plenty of time to get down there by car.

The passenger (customer) should always come first. In the perverse world of airline overbooking and seating practices that premise is reversed. Just another reason I drive if I have time when in the CONUS!

I agree with this entirely. United made two big mistakes, IMO: 1) allowing people to board before the overbooking was resolved, and 2) not picking their own employees for involuntary bumping.

But I do not think calling in law enforcement to forcibly remove the passenger was among their mistakes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I agree with this entirely. United made two big mistakes, IMO: 1) allowing people to board before the overbooking was resolved, and 2) not picking their own employees for involuntary bumping.

But I do not think calling in law enforcement to forcibly remove the passenger was among their mistakes.

The employees were a flight crew that had to be in Louisville by a certain time in order to be properly rested for the next day's flight. It might not have been possible to bump them without screwing up even more flights.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The employees were a flight crew that had to be in Louisville by a certain time in order to be properly rested for the next day's flight. It might not have been possible to bump them without screwing up even more flights.

I get that. But the problem I have with it is that Chicago to Louisville is not that far of a drive. If mandatory rest time is the issue, have somebody else drive them.

To me, that would've been the best solution to this -- at least from a PR standpoint.

 

[bawlmer]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the passenger was breaking the law just as soon as he refused a captain's order to deplane. Again, most people might be surprised at just how much formal legal authority is vested in the PIC.

That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no explanation of "why him" would've caused him to act any differently. He was pretty dead-set that he wasn't going to get up from that seat.

I don't doubt the pilot has that authority. I'd also bet passengers' rights are a bit broader when the issue is enforcement of corporate policy and not passenger safety. It's not exactly a good faith offer from United if I can be dragged forcibly from the plane if I don't accept.

Why not give the ticket agents authority to auction away miles to any willing passenger until they free-up the needed number of seats? Have some fun with it, even if it raises marginal costs (and creates an incentive to resolve it before boarding).