United passenger forcibly removed from plane for not giving up seat

[MrDudeMan]

😀 This is so stupid I'm quoting it so it doesn't get changed. Oscar Munoz, is that you?

Why would I change it? What I said is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't give in to the demands of every customer because you'd quickly be out of business. Obviously injuring them isn't part of the deal, but involuntary deboarding is within their rights and they chose to exercise it. This has worked N-1 times, so they had no reason to believe this would be the end result. You are obviously an idiot from your other posts, so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Svnla]

Another thing, per rule, the airline would pay you up to $1,350 per passenger.

There was a woman that make $11K from Delta recently from the bad weather from all of her family members - https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-made-11-000-off-190019902.html

 

[MrDudeMan]

Yes they do.

Anyone involuntarily bumped must be compensated, per Department of Transportation regulations. If the new flight gets you to your destination within one to two hours of the originally scheduled arrival, the airline must pay 200% of the price of the one-way fare, up to a maximum of $675. If you're delayed to the final destination by more than two hours within the U.S. (or four hours on international flights), the airline must fork over 400% of the one-way fare, maxing out at $1,350.

I read that and I know all of that, so I don't know what you're talking about. They have gotten away with getting people off of planes literally every other time this has been a situation for less than $2k in cash (you should read the rules again if you don't understand why that's relevant), so why would they do it this time?

The point you are all missing is how stupid it is to suggest they could have known to simply offer more and more money. I understand the game perfectly well as I have personally flown over 5 million miles on thousands of flights. I've seen this happen and had this happen to me more times than I can remember. If you want to roll the dice, hold out for a little more, but once they cross the threshold set by the FAA, they can kick you off for the minimum amount. I don't even know if we're responding to each other because I feel like I'm repeating the same thing with slightly more detail.

 

[JEDI]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-passenger-dragged-off-flight-speaks/

damn broken nose, lost a couple of teeth... they done fucked up

wtf lost teeth?!
does the video show how that happened?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Another thing, per rule, the airline would pay you up to $1,350 per passenger.

There was a woman that make $11K from Delta recently from the bad weather from all of her family members - https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-made-11-000-off-190019902.html

"Would" != "has to"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. This has never happened and $800 is more than reasonable for such a short flight. They aren't obligated to pay anywhere near that mount based on FAA regulations. If they thought getting punched in the face and sued was a possible outcome, I'm completely sure someone would have bumped to $1000 or higher. You guys are fucking morons if you honestly think that's what happened. I have literally seen an entire plane full of people reject a $500 voucher only to have 2 people get involuntarily deboarded. It happens so many times every day that it's hard to believe how many stupid people don't understand the concept. You don't have to like the rules and I'm not even saying I do, but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist. If you don't like it, work to change the system. I'd support that change because I've been stranded by an airline more than once and it blows.

 

[ponyo]

Why would I change it? What I said is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't give in to the demands of every customer because you'd quickly be out of business. Obviously injuring them isn't part of the deal, but involuntary deboarding is within their rights and they chose to exercise it. This has worked N-1 times, so they had no reason to believe this would be the end result. You are obviously an idiot from your other posts, so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.

Oscar, someone volunteered for $1,600. It's obvious you don't have the flexibility to be CEO. Someone needs to re-accommodate you.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Oscar, someone volunteered for $1,600. It's obvious you don't have the flexibility to be CEO. Someone needs to re-accommodate you.

Obviously they retracted the act of volunteering, which is why the situation changed to a lottery. Seriously? Did I really have to explain that? Also, two people were offered $800, which is not the same as what you just said. Are you even a human capable of thought or are you a bot reacting to keywords?

Edit: If I missed where a single person volunteered for $1600, that still doesn't change anything because United doesn't have to pay it. If that was true as written and United agreed to pay it, none of this would have happened, so obviously it isn't. You still aren't comprehending what I'm saying in my other posts (or this one).

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I read that and I know all of that, so I don't know what you're talking about. They have gotten away with getting people off of planes literally every other time this has been a situation for less than $2k in cash (you should read the rules again if you don't understand why that's relevant), so why would they do it this time?

The point you are all missing is how stupid it is to suggest they could have known to simply offer more and more money. I understand the game perfectly well as I have personally flown over 5 million miles on thousands of flights. I've seen this happen and had this happen to me more times than I can remember. If you want to roll the dice, hold out for a little more, but once they cross the threshold set by the FAA, they can kick you off for the minimum amount. I don't even know if we're responding to each other because I feel like I'm repeating the same thing with slightly more detail.

I haven't read every single post of this 17 page thread but if you can't understand at a certain point sacrificing a few hundred dollars for good customer service versus horrible publicity/reputation I don't know what to tell you.

 

[ponyo]

Obviously they retracted the act of volunteering, which is why the situation changed to a lottery. Seriously? Did I really have to explain that? Also, two people were offered $800, which is not the same as what you just said. Are you even a human capable of thought or are you a bot reacting to keywords?

Edit: If I missed where a single person volunteered for $1600, that still doesn't change anything. If that was true as written, none of this would have happened, so obviously it isn't. You still aren't comprehending what I'm saying in my other posts (or this one).

Look moron, why are you posting dumb shit in this thread when you don't even know the simple details of this case? Read the thread, read the articles, then come back and post your dumb comments. At least then we might take you seriously.

 

[Ns1]

MrDudeMan - the policies that you describe have led to United being in this position. If you believe that is good policy (because it's "legal") then be prepared to deal with the fallout when you meet a guy like Mr Dao

 

[MrDudeMan]

I haven't read every single post of this 17 page thread but if you can't understand at a certain point sacrificing a few hundred dollars for good customer service versus horrible publicity/reputation I don't know what to tell you.

Jesus Christ... I just said the exact same thing. The only difference is they didn't know how much this was going to escalate because it never happens that way. I literally just said if they had known I'm sure they would have offered slightly more money. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THAT. Are we not communicating in the same language or something?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Look moron, why are you posting dumb shit in this thread when you don't even know the simple details of this case? Read the thread, read the articles, then come back and post your dumb comments. At least then we might take you seriously.

I've read the entire thread, most of the news articles, and I obviously have way more first-hand experience with this than you. Not once have I defended the practice, but that doesn't change that it's real or that airlines can boot you for less than they usually offer. The main point I am responding to is the unbelievable stupidity of "well if they had just...". If you go into walmart and demand more than they are willing to give, they have policies setup to protect themselves from abuse of refund policies and everything else a customer would try to pull. I'm not saying United's policy, FAA regulations, or anything else is reasonable or logical in an absolute sense, but what United did in terms of what they are forced to do was reasonable and logical. FAA regulations say to do X, Y, and Z before involuntarily deboarding people and they did them as far as I have seen. "Lolz they should have offered moar $$ now look how stupid" is the idiocy being spouted here and that's what I'm addressing. They upped the offer multiple times, no one took it, so they enacted plan B which is the lottery. Like it or don't - I'm not suggesting it's perfectly fair and fine, but never before has this happened and millions of people have gone through this with far less escalation. My young daughter understands this logic, so I'm not sure why you don't. It's an explanation of what is, not what should be, which is being confused with what could have been based on what couldn't have been known.

If every single person held out for more money, airlines would involuntarily deboard people more frequently. This is a self-regulating issue because people won't and don't typically gamble once the voucher passes a certain amount. I've never seen someone be given the maximum amount, but I've seen plenty of people take hefty amounts and I've personally accepted 400-600 a few times. I was well aware that if they stopped offering before anyone agreed to take the voucher that I could be deboarded for less - usually around the price of the ticket because most of my flights are less than two hours.

 

[Ns1]

what United did in terms of what they are forced to do was reasonable and logical

there is certainly a percentage of the population that believes this
there is also a large percentage of the population that doesn't believe this, and they wont' be flying United again if they have a choice.

 

[MrDudeMan]

there is certainly a percentage of the population that believes this
there is also a large percentage of the population that doesn't believe this, and they wont' be flying United again if they have a choice.

You quoted a piece of the sentence without the rest of the context that definitely mattered. Well done dumbass. I do not agree with what they did nor do I agree with the rules. That doesn't change what is currently allowed.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I've read the entire thread, most of the news articles, and I obviously have way more first-hand experience with this than you. Not once have I defended the practice, but that doesn't change that it's real or that airlines can boot you for less than they usually offer. The main point I am responding to is the unbelievable stupidity of "well if they had just...". If you go into walmart and demand more than they are willing to give, they have policies setup to protect themselves from abuse of refund policies and everything else a customer would try to pull. I'm not saying United's policy, FAA regulations, or anything else is reasonable or logical in an absolute sense, but what United did in terms of what they are forced to do was reasonable and logical. FAA regulations say to do X, Y, and Z before involuntarily deboarding people and they did them as far as I have seen. "Lolz they should have offered moar $$ now look how stupid" is the idiocy being spouted here and that's what I'm addressing. They upped the offer multiple times, no one took it, so they enacted plan B which is the lottery. Like it or don't - I'm not suggesting it's perfectly fair and fine, but never before has this happened and millions of people have gone through this with far less escalation. My young daughter understands this logic, so I'm not sure why you don't. It's an explanation of what is, not what should be, which is being confused with what could have been based on what couldn't have been known.

Ironically, Walmart will almost unilaterally agree to anything short of 'I want the store' if you yell loud enough, because they understand that they'd rather give away/lose money on some garbage than end up with a twitter feed full of smashed face. I happen to know this first hand.

As well, they DIDN'T enact a lottery, since this guy and his wife were originally selected and offered cash, he refused, then they targeted the two for removal. That requires some pretty long odds to assume they got 'randomly selected'.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Ironically, Walmart will almost unilaterally agree to anything short of 'I want the store' if you yell loud enough, because they understand that they'd rather give away/lose money on some garbage than end up with a twitter feed full of smashed face. I happen to know this first hand.

As well, they DIDN'T enact a lottery, since this guy and his wife were originally selected and offered cash, he refused, then they targeted the two for removal. That requires some pretty long odds to assume they got 'randomly selected'.

That's true - Walmart was not a good example. They still don't give you whatever you want. If you try to return a $20 item and ask for $30, they're not going to do that. I know that isn't what happened here, but I'm illustrating the point that companies will still protect themselves while also balancing customer relations. Obviously United failed in this regard.

I haven't seen that they were offered cash. Can you provide a link saying they declined cash? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I've just never heard of cash being given at such high amounts. I have seen gift cards given out, which I suppose could be what you are saying, but the article I read said they initially accepted vouchers until they were told there weren't any more flights that day, so then they declined, which is reasonable and certainly within their rights.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's true - Walmart was not a good example. They still don't give you whatever you want. If you try to return a $20 item and ask for $30, they're not going to do that. I know that isn't what happened here, but I'm illustrating the point that companies will still protect themselves while also balancing customer relations. Obviously United failed in this regard.

I worked at walmart. I watched a man bring back 15 empty bags of sand. His reason for return was that they weren't the consistency he wanted. When asked why he used all 15 bags, he said he needed to see it all in place to determine if it was the consistency he wanted. When asked why he didn't return the sand, he said it was impossible to get it back in the bags. He complained, and management relented, and gave him back $200+ dollars for empty sand bags.

But yes, United (specifically United's policies and usage of force) failed them massively.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I worked at walmart. I watched a man bring back 15 empty bags of sand. His reason for return was that they weren't the consistency he wanted. When asked why he used all 15 bags, he said he needed to see it all in place to determine if it was the consistency he wanted. When asked why he didn't return the sand, he said it was impossible to get it back in the bags. He complained, and management relented, and gave him back $200+ dollars for empty sand bags.

But yes, United (specifically United's policies and usage of force) failed them massively.

While your example is funny and sad, I'd consider it a gray area unless the bags weren't worth $200 (which hopefully they weren't because holy shit overpriced). I have never heard of or experienced that level of pro-consumer behavior, but I also understand that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I simply can't understand why your managers would have done that because no one should have found that situation to be reasonable. /sigh

Edit: see my last post as I edited it. Sorry about the mixup.

 

[Ns1]

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I've just never heard of cash being given at such high amounts.

guy who has more experience than any of us has never heard of an airline handing out $1600 cash to get an additional passenger off the plane.

 

[manly]

Jesus Christ... I just said the exact same thing. The only difference is they didn't know how much this was going to escalate because it never happens that way. I literally just said if they had known I'm sure they would have offered slightly more money. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THAT. Are we not communicating in the same language or something?

I agree that there's no way UAL could've known the security offer would resort to "excessive" force to remove the customer.

But your argument is still flawed. They absolutely knew that an $800 voucher was not enough because NOBODY volunteered. Now apparently federal rules state a cap of $1,350 which may or may not have convinced someone to bite. UAL's CEO claims that up to $1k was authorized but I haven't seen anybody on the flight confirm that number. Point being at the least, they could've gone up to $1,350.

Also you're making up your own terminology. IDB is involuntarily denied boarding. Not DEBOARDED which obviously is a whole different animal. So it's FALSE to claim that millions of passengers have been deboarded over decades, that is simply untrue. Overbookings are almost always handled calmly at the gate.

IANAL so whether a passenger can be boarded onto a flight into a confirmed seat, then compelled to leave is beyond my pay grade. Does it happen? Yes, but it's relatively infrequent in the US. What I and others are saying is that when Mr. Dao clearly (and calmly) said he's not leaving, the airline still had the ability to offer up to $1,350. They are also able to offer cash instead of a flight voucher; I believe for many people that is a significant difference. I'm not arguing they should've been waving $2k bundles of cash in the air immediately but they did have some limited options. Hindsight being 20/20, a $2k wad of cash would've been an easy solution to their business problem.

Time.com released footage of Mr. Dao talking to a security offer prior to the assault. He clearly says he won't leave but he's never belligerent and IMO hardly raises his voice. (In the video I believe he even says put him in jail if you must.) Up until Monday, I'd suspect a high majority of Americans wouldn't even know that you could be seated on a plane, then asked to leave (I certainly didn't). In that light, I totally understand how a 69 year old man would be insistent that he's not tossed off the plane involuntarily. Final point being based on video evidence and numerous eyewitness testimonies, IMO UAL clearly lied that Mr. Dao was belligerent and that he struck an officer (yes, that was in their written report).

 

[MrDudeMan]

guy who has more experience than any of us has never heard of an airline handing out $1600 cash to get an additional passenger off the plane.

This post is nonsensical and proves nothing. I have literally never seen it. I didn't say it hasn't happened, but I've never seen it. If you can't understand the difference between those two, post the gif directed at yourself.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While your example is funny and sad, I'd consider it a gray area unless the bags weren't worth $200 (which hopefully they weren't because holy shit overpriced). I have never heard of or experienced that level of pro-consumer behavior, but I also understand that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I simply can't understand why your managers would have done that because no one should have found that situation to be reasonable. /sigh

Edit: see my last post as I edited it. Sorry about the mixup.

That's the thing though, what's unreasonable to the laymen is totally reasonable to Walmart (or any other multi-billion dollar business). Those bags ($12-$15 a piece, ~$200 total) were worth so little in the grand scheme of walmart, compared to walmart calling security, having to drag the dude out while screaming for help, getting his face bashed into an ice machine, and being raked across the coals on Twitter for several days. It's just not worth it.

So, looping back to United... If they really decided it was worth so much that they just *had* to have these four employees on this flight instead of driving, private jetting, whatever them to their destination that they just HAD to bump four passengers, they better be willing to fork over the scratch to bribe proper. Otherwise you manhandle your customers, and you end up with a thousand memes on twitter and China's populace blacklisting you.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I agree that there's no way UAL could've known the security offer would resort to "excessive" force to remove the customer.

But your argument is still flawed. They absolutely knew that an $800 voucher was not enough because NOBODY volunteered. Now apparently federal rules state a cap of $1,350 which may or may not have convinced someone to bite. UAL's CEO claims that up to $1k was authorized but I haven't seen anybody on the flight confirm that number. Point being at the least, they could've gone up to $1,350.

Also you're making up your own terminology. IDB is involuntarily denied boarding. Not DEBOARDED which obviously is a whole different animal. So it's FALSE to claim that millions of passengers have been deboarded over decades, that is simply untrue. Overbookings are almost always handled calmly at the gate.

IANAL so whether a passenger can be boarded onto a flight into a confirmed seat, then compelled to leave is beyond my pay grade. Does it happen? Yes, but it's relatively infrequent in the US. What I and others are saying is that when Mr. Dao clearly (and calmly) said he's not leaving, the airline still had the ability to offer up to $1,350. They are also able to offer cash instead of a flight voucher; I believe for many people that is a significant difference. I'm not arguing they should've been waving $2k bundles of cash in the air immediately but they did have some limited options. Hindsight being 20/20, a $2k wad of cash would've been an easy solution to their business problem.

Time.com released footage of Mr. Dao talking to a security offer prior to the assault. He clearly says he won't leave but he's never belligerent and IMO hardly raises his voice. (In the video I believe he even says put him in jail if you must.) Up until Monday, I'd suspect a high majority of Americans wouldn't even know that you could be seated on a plane, then asked to leave (I certainly didn't). In that light, I totally understand how a 69 year old man would be insistent that he's not tossed off the plane involuntarily. Final point being based on video evidence is numerous eyewitness testimonies, IMO UAL clearly lied that Mr. Dao was belligerent and that he struck an officer (yes, that was in their written report).

Fair enough - I don't know the term, but it happens whether or not anyone agrees with it. I have never and will never say I think this is all perfectly fine and reasonable, but what United did considering the rules was reasonable. You might think the rules are stupid and I'd probably agree with that. It makes zero difference how right or wrong he was; it only matters what United is allowed to do.

 

[Darwin333]

From what I've read there's a lot of grey area here. There's been a few places that have said that they didn't follow through with the established Fed stuff on how to go about this, including presenting something in writing to the passengers. It's going to be interesting to see the fallout. I doubt anyone will stop the overselling of flights though, but I do think it'll be a bit longer of a painful process for them. As far as this has blown up, it's not going to go away quickly.

The practice of overselling flights has been around for a long time and never has it blown up like this, even though this was NOT an oversold flight and the practice isn't going anywhere. United fucked up first and foremost by not handling this at the gate, if they had done that then there would have been no issues. Secondly, they fucked up by not just continuing to raise their offer. There was most definitely a dollar sum that would have gotten 4 people to voluntarily leave that flight that would have cost them less than the two-hour delay much less the PR nightmare, stock hit, and impending lawsuits.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The practice of overselling flights has been around for a long time and never has it blown up like this, even though this was NOT an oversold flight and the practice isn't going anywhere. United fucked up first and foremost by not handling this at the gate, if they had done that then there would have been no issues. Secondly, they fucked up by not just continuing to raise their offer. There was most definitely a dollar sum that would have gotten 4 people to voluntarily leave that flight that would have cost them less than the two-hour delay much less the PR nightmare, stock hit, and impending lawsuits.

Also blood all over their nice expensive plane.