Passenger Dragged off United Airlines Flight In Chicago

[SchoolHouse Rock]

Saying what the guy could've done doesn't help. What should be done is more of concern at least to me.

Except this is the same thing? The guy should have complied, collected his money, and spent the night in a paid hotel watching Adult Swim and raiding the minibar in the fridge.

But he didn't want that. He didn't want the money. Look at his perspective. He wanted to get back (if I remember correctly to his patients on schedule.) To him that meant staying on the earliest flight that he could. Time was more important to him. Any offer he would have likely turned down.

Maybe I should make something clear. I don't think everything the guy did was right, but I can empathize with him more than United. Not everything United did was right either, at least in my own opinion.

[A Humanist Prognostication]

See, this is why you take Amtrak instead. That way, once you've spent 15 hours on a trip that would have taken 1.5 by aircraft, most of which was on a bus crammed between that smelly transient student and the "toilet" with the door that doesn't quite close, because the business-class-upgrade train you paid for never showed due to some idiot driver who doesn't know what crossing gates are for...even despite all that, you'll probably still arrive with all of your teeth.

Probably. On the upside, you can also probably wear shoes and carry-on all the razor blades and shampoo you want.

Anyway, inb4 court finds that a plane ticket is a license which implies no actual transfer of ownership of any seat on any plane, which, according to the fine print on/in said license, United (as sole actual owner of said seat/plane) can revoke at any time for any reason.

The terms of use of this post include the provision that the reader shall recognize that what is "legal" and what is "not super shitty" are not always the same thing.

[New haven america]

Saying what the guy could've done doesn't help. What should be done is more of concern at least to me.

Except this is the same thing? The guy should have complied, collected his money, and spent the night in a paid hotel watching Adult Swim and raiding the minibar in the fridge.

He's a doctor and had to be at work the next day.

[The East Marches II]

Except this is the same thing? The guy should have complied, collected his money, and spent the night in a paid hotel watching Adult Swim and raiding the minibar in the fridge.

He's a doctor and had to be at work the next day.

Sucks to be him, bad luck tbh

[New Axiom]

So? Sucks to be him.

[Irona]

He's a doctor and had to be at work the next day.

Sucks to be him, bad luck tbh

Tries to help patients - is assaulted

[The East Marches II]

Sucks to be him, bad luck tbh

Tries to help patients - is assaulted

It's American police, were you expecting a positive outcome when they are involved?

[Shofercia]

A Passenger was recently dragged off a United Airlines flight in Chicago after he refused to voluntarily give up his seat due to the flight being overbooked. He is a doctor and needed to be at work the following day.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr- ... d935461a97

I don't care what anyone says such action by law enforcement or TSA agents is completely utterly unacceptable. This is absolutely zero justification for such actions. It seems lately law enforcement and TSA agents feel they cant do whatever they want and get away with it.

What say you NSG? What's your reaction to this highly disturbing story?

The passengers should've been united against his deportation from the plane. But they took out their cell phones and filmed it on camera instead. United they stand, but they get dragged out while filming. I'm guessing everyone working for that airline's PR department is having a united headache.

[Shofercia]

More like "you're doing the only thing". They can criticize and record it freely; I have no problems with it.
But what's the other option?

Have someone else volunteer to get off? IDK.

Then they'd have to pay more.

Its both a policing and company issue.

Fucker refused to get up from his seat, thats his problem unless he thinks himself the modern rosa parks.

And if he becomes the modern Rosa Parks?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliciamelvillesmith/a-man-was-dragged-off-united-plane-after-the-airline?utm_term=.rd4wgDEaK#.uszzwXyKg

When asked why the airline had the man forcibly removed, and whether that was standard procedure in cases of overbooked flights, United refused to comment.

Instead they told BuzzFeed News all further questions should be referred to Chicago Police. BuzzFeed News contacted Chicago Police and were told to contact the Chicago Department of Aviation. When BuzzFeed News contacted the Chicago Department of Aviation they were transferred to a TSA message bank. A TSA spokesperson later told BuzzFeed News they were not involved and to contact Chicago Police.

Good stuff.

Now imagine dealing with the same shit, but add a chronic health condition. Welcome to the US Healthcare System.

How does overbooking even happen? I mean, it can't be that hard to avoid, I can't even overbook a fucking movie.

United sells more tickets than there are spaces on the plane, and hopes that not everyone shows up.

[Shofercia]

([url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9EI3-cXkAAuYcg.jpg]Image)[/url]

On the bright side, the CEO seems to be mildly upset about getting the police to re-accommodate the passengers face in a manner which cases blood to be re-accommodated from inside the body to outside on the face. Makes it all good.

He apologized for having to re-accommodate his customers

I just wanna say tho
$800 and a hotel stay in exchange for a like a days delay and no one took it wtf
am I just poor or something

Hey, you can have a job - book seats with United, and then get paid to give up your seat

[Irona]

How does overbooking even happen? I mean, it can't be that hard to avoid, I can't even overbook a fucking movie.

In the UK and EU it's much more difficult to overbook a flight, but in the US the laws definitely seem skewed in favour of the company rather than the consumer and so airlines overbook every flight they can and get caught out like this constantly. Whenever I fly in the US it's only a matter of time till somthing like this happens.

[Great Nepal]

Maybe you're right, but walking onto someone's property and paying to be on that property are two separate things here. Would it be right to throw out a homeowner who's paying their mortgage on time? Is it wrong to throw out the customer who paid to use that airline seat?

What do you suggest they do with an overbooked flight? Have people stand?

Or, a revolutionary idea pick number above 800. Delta have offered $1.3k for people to get bumped off even when the problem was out of their control, I've been offered £1k from Qatar to wait for five hours. Airlines take risk by overbooking, that is fine but if it turns up tails they can't just shrug and claim it'll be too expensive to deal with it while taking profit for turning up heads.

[Organized States]

The Flight Crew (FAs) ordered him off the aircraft. His ass is off the aircraft.

That's how it is and should be. Flight Crew are gods onboard. Period.

[Irona]

The Flight Crew (FAs) ordered him off the aircraft. His ass is off the aircraft.

That's how it is and should be. Flight Crew are gods onboard. Period.

What happened to customer comes first?

[A Humanist Prognostication]

United sells more tickets than there are spaces on the plane, and hopes that not everyone shows up.

And the airlines get away with it because there is ineffective market competition in mass transport. Unless airports become impossibly huge, the number of airline competitors is naturally limited. And other modes (driving, trains, etc) cannot even begin to compete with their speed and convenience. Especially in international travel.

Thus, a handful of airlines can all take your money according to terms they will not guarantee, via revocable contracts they can throw out at their own convenience, because...well, really, what are you going to do about it anyway? Travel for 20 hours instead of 2? Or, if traveling internationally, swim?

Of course, the necessary regulation needed to correct this market inefficiency won't happen cause this is the United States and we can't let the dirty commies win.

[Great Nepal]

The Flight Crew (FAs) ordered him off the aircraft. His ass is off the aircraft.

That's how it is and should be. Flight Crew are gods onboard. Period.

Quite obviously companies should be rewarded for risky behavior by shifting the cost of the risk away from them to the customer.

[Organized States]

What happened to customer comes first?

Quite obviously companies should be rewarded for risky behavior by shifting the cost of the risk away from them to the customer.

Section 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations stipulates that "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

In his refusal to the Flight Attendent's orders to deplane the aircraft, he was in violation of Federal Regulation by interferring with the performance of the FA's duties on board the aircraft (which are to follow the orders of the Captain/Pilot-in-Command and the Station Manager). His ass is off that airplane. He doesn't have the right to fuck with the FARs.

[The Black Forrest]

What happened to customer comes first?

Quite obviously companies should be rewarded for risky behavior by shifting the cost of the risk away from them to the customer.

Section 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations stipulates that "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

In his refusal to the Flight Attendent's orders to deplane the aircraft, he was in violation of Federal Regulation by interferring with the performance of the FA's duties on board the aircraft (which are to follow the orders of the Captain/Pilot-in-Command and the Station Manager). His ass is off that airplane. He doesn't have the right to fuck with the FARs.

Nice try. The doctor wasn't doing anything. There is a much larger guideline to handle this.

In the past; airlines used to offer much more for people to give up seats.

The doctor paid for his seat. It's not his problem that crappy airline overbooked and didn't properly plan staff needs.

[Great Nepal]

What happened to customer comes first?

Quite obviously companies should be rewarded for risky behavior by shifting the cost of the risk away from them to the customer.

Section 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations stipulates that "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

In his refusal to the Flight Attendent's orders to deplane the aircraft, he was in violation of Federal Regulation by interferring with the performance of the FA's duties on board the aircraft (which are to follow the orders of the Captain/Pilot-in-Command and the Station Manager). His ass is off that airplane. He doesn't have the right to fuck with the FARs.

1. Good job addressing excatly 0% of the points.
2. If sitting in a seat you've paid for constitutes assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated", perhaps that demonstrates problem with the law.

[Frank Zipper]

Airlines should sort out who gets a seat before people get on the plane.

[Organized States]

Nice try. The doctor wasn't doing anything. There is a much larger guideline to handle this.

In the past; airlines used to offer much more for people to give up seats.

The doctor paid for his seat. It's not his problem that crappy airline overbooked and didn't properly plan staff needs.

No, he was being belligerant and incompliant with United Flight Attendent who was performing company policy that is all fully legal under the Law.

Sure, United's a shit airline. I could have told you that a long ass time ago. But his ass was uncooperative and should have been removed a lot earlier than he did. I don't give a fuck if he's a doctor or not. Nor do I give a fuck about where he needs to be next. He's interfering and disobeying the orders of the Flight Attendents. Get his ass off the plane.

[Organized States]

Section 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations stipulates that "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

In his refusal to the Flight Attendent's orders to deplane the aircraft, he was in violation of Federal Regulation by interferring with the performance of the FA's duties on board the aircraft (which are to follow the orders of the Captain/Pilot-in-Command and the Station Manager). His ass is off that airplane. He doesn't have the right to fuck with the FARs.

1. Good job addressing excatly 0% of the points.
2. If sitting in a seat you've paid for constitutes assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated", perhaps that demonstrates problem with the law.

No, I addressed them. He was violating the law, clear and simple. I don't have to agree with the law. I don't make policy. But his ass was demonstrating incompliance and he was belligerent with United employees repeatedly. He interfered with the operation of the aircraft. Additionally, we don't know whether or not he paid for it. United's buddy-pass system is wide-reaching and often used.

[Great Nepal]

1. Good job addressing excatly 0% of the points.
2. If sitting in a seat you've paid for constitutes assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated", perhaps that demonstrates problem with the law.

No, I addressed them. He was violating the law, clear and simple. I don't have to agree with the law. I don't make policy. But his ass was demonstrating incompliance and he was belligerent with United employees repeatedly. He interfered with the operation of the aircraft. Additionally, we don't know whether or not he paid for it. United's buddy-pass system is wide-reaching and often used.

1. You addressed rewarding company for risk taking by shifting away consequences of bad risk while they keep profits from good risk, how?
2. Sitting in a seat you paid for = being belligerent
3. Unless you can demonstrate he didn't pay, I'm going with more common paying for ticket especially given united in its statement didn't state otherwise.

[A Humanist Prognostication]

2. Sitting in a seat you paid for = being belligerent

I'm neither a lawyer nor an avid flyer, but I'm willing to make a small wager that the fine print on an airline ticket says that you're not actually buying a seat, so much as you're buying a piece of paper that entitles you to approach a boarding gate and ask permission to board. The difference is that the first implies a transfer of ownership of the seat, while the second implies only a license to use a seat with (potentially fully revocable) permission of the owner.

Please note that United's reason for revoking its permission in this case can be fully, completely, and incomprehensibly stupid while the above remains completely true and legal.

[Organized States]

No, I addressed them. He was violating the law, clear and simple. I don't have to agree with the law. I don't make policy. But his ass was demonstrating incompliance and he was belligerent with United employees repeatedly. He interfered with the operation of the aircraft. Additionally, we don't know whether or not he paid for it. United's buddy-pass system is wide-reaching and often used.

1. You addressed rewarding company for risk taking by shifting away consequences of bad risk while they keep profits from good risk, how?
2. Sitting in a seat you paid for = being belligerent
3. Unless you can demonstrate he didn't pay, I'm going with more common paying for ticket especially given united in its statement didn't state otherwise.

1. Profit risk is not my issue. Safety of flight and of crew is. United's internal memos repeatedly and wholly report that he was belligerant towards the Flight Attendents and other crew members, which is illegal, according to the FARs (also a chargable offense)
2. He did not comply with crewmember orders. That's belligerent. Then, additionally, he failed to comply with the orders of the Aviation Safety Officers (also a chargable offense).
3. United's priority for removing people from the Flight is as such: Buddy Passes go first, then standby passengers, then standard fare passengers. Considering that he was among the first removed from the Flight, we can guess that he was either a Buddy-Pass Passenger or a Standby.