"Overbooked" United Flight

[Rdmax]

So I imagine everyone has heard about this incident that happened this sunday.
What do you think? Has it changed the way you fly?

[LesPalenik]

Unbelievable! Just imagine they'd start dragging someone out of his seat to the door while the airplane is in the air.

[Robert Roaldi]

I have been saying it for years, flying is the worst way to travel. "We" wanted cheap(er) flights, well now we have them. Is everyone happy now?

It's doubly irritating because the free market hasn't provided a reasonable mid-grade flying option. It's either cattle service or very much more expensive business or first class, where they are available.

Just wait till UberAir arrives on the scene, we ain't seen nothing yet.

[Jim Pascoe]

It hardly seems possible that a crew picks on a passenger, demonises them for not doing what they (unreasonably) demand, and then treat him like a criminal.

It's What happens when an intransigent organisation goes head to head with a stubborn individual.  Personally I would have complied with the crews demands, but I can only imagine the sense of injustice I would feel.

As it is I usually feel like an animal being herded around whenever I fly.

Jim

[Paulo Bizarro]

IMO:
1. The passenger was not treated the right way.
2. The passenger had paid for the ticket, so he was entitled to travel.
3. I would demand heavy compensation from the airline.
Overbooking is nothing new, it happened to me before; what I find strange is that the airline let the passenger board the plane. In my case, while checking in, I was:
1. Offered some money to take the next flight.
2. Offered to be upgraded to business class.

[sdwilsonsct]

Happily, some of us can use WestJet, which does not overbook.

[DeanChriss]

I've always said that airlines are the only companies that can treat their customers like dirt and get away with it. They know you have to take whatever they offer or not travel, since it's not usually possible to get to your destination by other means in a reasonable amount of time.  Customer service is not a priority because for the most part it doesn't need to be.

When it comes to international flights the Asian airlines seem to treat customers extremely well, have newer aircraft, serve decent food, and still make money. Flying overseas on our US airlines is a completely different experience, more like an extremely long domestic flight.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Refusing to give up a seat, in spite of laws, rules and regulations...sounds familiar, doesn't it?  Hopefully will lead to legislative changes just as well.

[RSL]

IMO:
3. I would demand heavy compensation from the airline.

Oh, don't worry Paulo, the airline will compensate that passenger HEAVILY!!!! I can guarantee it.

[Joe Towner]

The moment you pass the gate agent and head down the jetbridge, you're on the flight.  If there was a capacity issue, it had to be dealt with prior to the gate.  Chicago isn't a small town, and honestly, for what they were offering they'd have been better to grab one of the local charter jet companies to get the crew there.

[PeterAit]

Overbooking should be illegal with heavy fines involved. So what if the airlines' profits suffer a bit - boo hoo. And this incident was not even for other paying passengers but for airline employees!

A more recent United incident has a paid-up first class passenger forced to leave his seat and move to coach because a "higher priority" passenger needed the seat.

[owinthomas]

According to the BBC the airline asked four passengers to get off due to the requirement of moving four STAFF members to another airport, three passengers agreed but this passenger, who was a doctor with patients to see the next day, refused. Why didn't they pick another passenger?

BBC news: United Airlines incident: What went wrong?

[tom b]

An epic fail!

Sorry,

[Robert Roaldi]

I've read a bit about this episode on these pages and elsewhere. Some of it was outrage, some vitriol, some was of the "those are the rules" variety. None of this is particularly useful in solving the larger problem that flying has become a generally awful experience, which in some cases (airplanes stranded on runways for hours) go beyond the pale of what humans should be subjected to. It's telling that in most of these cases, the airlines were not found to have done anything illegal or that was not permitted to them. I would be tempted to argue that the regulatory environment that allowed these things to happen with little consequence to the airlines is therefore faulty. Maybe even a market failure. That is, the fact that "those were the rules" is not an adequate answer, as far as I am concerned. As always, someone allowed those rules to be set up that way, and I am sure that they were to someone's advantage.

I am left wondering. Why, when I buy my flight ticket, can I not opt for a class of ticket that maybe costs a little more but that does NOT permit them to bump me? Isn't that how a free market should operate, that is, what people want should be reflected in the price of a commodity. When we deregulated the airlines, thus guaranteeing the race to the bottom of not only prices but of service too, why didn't anyone stand up and say, "Hey, wait a minute."

(Another possible way of possibly handling this is a non-refundable deposit on making a reservation. Odd what we have come to think that we can change our plans willy-nilly right up to the time of departure at no cost to ourselves. Can you imagine a wedding photography contract without a non-refundable deposit?)

And in case someone is tempted to answer that there is such an option, it's called first class, let me state in advance that is not even close to acceptable. Having the "no bump option" should not cost three times as much as a regular ticket. Besides, there are lots of flights with no first class section.

Shouldn't free market competition fix these kinds of problems? Why haven't they? The airline marketplace is surely mature enough by now.

[BJL]

First, to get the facts straight: this was not your usual overbooked flight, where some passengers with tickets but not seat assignments cannot even board. Instead, it was four last minute "must fly" passengers: crew needed at another airport, probably to avoid having to cancel a flight and so inconvenience a lot more that four passengers.

But of course there are many better ways they could have handled it, starting with the obvious one of increasing the rewards offered to passengers who voluntarily give up. I am sure that $2000 per seat would have done it, at far less cost than this bad publicity. If there is a fear that passengers would keep holding out for a later, better pay-off, make the deal that if the offer goes up after you agree to give up your seat, you too get that later, better deal.

More radically, airlines could set aside a few of the worst "middle of the row with no under-seat stowage" seats for the occasional "must fly at the last minute" passengers, and sell these at heavily discounted prices on the understanding that they can be taken back at the last minute, with bumping compensation on previously advertised terms. That's "transparency".

[Tim Lookingbill]

They basically used city paid police to treat a paying customer as a trespasser who refused to get off United's property. And as we've seen with police in the media in how they deal with the non-compliant public, if you don't do what they say, you receive a concussion and get your front teeth knocked out.

I mean the guy being dragged off the plane is a doctor trying to get to his patients. They couldn't have picked someone else to remove? Folks have not only lost their common sense but also their minds and souls.

I hope United gets their ass sued big time!

God! I'm glad I don't fly.

[Alan Klein]

I don't see how an airline can use police force to enforce a financial agreement  between two parties where the fee had already been paid.   Police would say if the airline had a problem, then sue the passenger.  Take the passenger to court.  It's not a criminal issue.   I recall hearing that the airline originally told the police that the passenger was unruly.  But that wasn't the case at least not until the police arrived.  Would the police had thrown the guy off just on the basis the airline wanted him off because of some small print if they told them why they wanted him off the plane?  Are the police actually allowed to enforce contracts like that with force?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Are the police actually allowed to enforce contracts like that with force?

According to United and the city officials the airport resides it's no longer allowed.

"Edited to spell 'allowed' correctly. I can't believe I missed that!"

[Alan Klein]

Interesting article that purports that airline refused to "transport" rather than him thrown off because of overbooking since he was already on the plane and had paid.  Since he didn't seem to violate any of the rules of "transport", what United did was in violation of their own rules.
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

[Alan Klein]

That's why United originally complained he was a "nuisance" because only that situation would give them a right in the "transport" phase to throw him off. 

As an aside, I don't think the government should get involved making their own regulations.  Let competition and law suits straighten this out, which it will.