Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rdmax on April 11, 2017, 07:29:31 pm
-
So I imagine everyone has heard about this incident that happened this sunday.
What do you think? Has it changed the way you fly?
-
Unbelievable! Just imagine they'd start dragging someone out of his seat to the door while the airplane is in the air.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Happily, some of us can use WestJet, which does not overbook.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39556910)
-
An epic fail!
Sorry,
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!"
-
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/
-
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.
-
According to United and the city officials the airport resides it's no longer aloud.
Yes, they'd do it quietly next time ;)
-
If anyone is interested in reading the United Airlines rules, they can be found at
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
Two sections are of interest in this context
Rule 21 - Refusal of Transport
Rule 25 - Denied Boarding Compensation
Since the passenger was already seated, it appears that rule 21 applies.
There are lots of reasons why an airline can boot you off the flight. Too many in my opinion.
As for the police/security getting involved. If the airline crew decides that a passenger is in violation of rule 21 and "intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft", the passenger may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. section 46504 which states
"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."
Unfortunately, post 911, the threshold for 46504 violations has been relaxed. In any case, if the crew could reasonably feel that the passenger was in violation of 46504 (even if demonstrated that the passenger was not), the use of police force would be authorized.
It will be an interesting court case. I hope that they don't settle out of court. These types of cases need to go to trial. Things don't change when corporations settle out of court.
-
If anyone is interested in reading the United Airlines rules, they can be found at
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
Two sections are of interest in this context
Rule 21 - Refusal of Transport
Rule 25 - Denied Boarding Compensation
Since the passenger was already seated, it appears that rule 21 applies.
There are lots of reasons why an airline can boot you off the flight. Too many in my opinion.
As for the police/security getting involved. If the airline crew decides that a passenger is in violation of rule 21 and "intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft", the passenger may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. section 46504 which states
"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."
Unfortunately, post 911, the threshold for 46504 violations has been relaxed. In any case, if the crew could reasonably feel that the passenger was in violation of 46504 (even if demonstrated that the passenger was not), the use of police force would be authorized.
It will be an interesting court case. I hope that they don't settle out of court. These types of cases need to go to trial. Things don't change when corporations settle out of court.
Rule 21 Refusal of Transport does not apply because the passenger did not violate any of them. The airline told the police he was unruly, but that was a lie. There was no issue until the police tried to drag him off the plane. He may have at that point violated law by not following a policeman's order, but that's a separate issue. I'm not sure what authority the "police" had in any case as it was not a regular policeman, I don't think.
This will never go to court. United admitted they were wrong. All that has to be decided is how much they're going to pay him.
-
Yes, they'd do it quietly next time ;)
Yeah, I misspelled the word "allowed"-(from aloud).
I've been doing this lately after noticing the weird caffeine effects on my memory after switching to a local gourmet coffee bean roaster's organic coffee bean brand. The owner of the new local business I talked with on the phone indicates it has magical powers for losing weight and now I'm assuming one's mind. I wonder how much mental memory weighs.
-
Um, the situation was NOT an overbooking issue. It was United Crew that needed to be on the flight, only for the convenience to United. Had this been a typical overbooking issue it would have been handled at the gate and never gotten to this point.
The fact that this was United exercising their "right" to bump paying passengers for their own convenience makes this orders of magnitude worse than the overbooking fiasco it is portrayed as. Yet another case of the media getting it wrong... another rant for another day..
-
Yeah, I misspelled the word "allowed"-(from aloud).
I've been doing this lately after noticing the weird caffeine effects on my memory after switching to a local gourmet coffee bean roaster's organic coffee bean brand. The owner of the new local business I talked with on the phone indicates it has magical powers for losing weight and now I'm assuming one's mind. I wonder how much mental memory weighs.
Autocorrect or autotype (T9) gets me all the time on my phone.
-
It'd be interesting to find out the cost of flying the four crew to their destination via a privately chartered jet. Significantly less than the cost United now face I bet.
-
It'd be interesting to find out the cost of flying the four crew to their destination via a privately chartered jet. Significantly less than the cost United now face I bet.
Local Louisville charter company lists $1,200 - $1,800 per hour for a turboprop. Figure 1.5 hours flight time?
https://www.evojets.com/private-jet-charter-flights-to-louisville-ky_133.html
-
Some of the many things I don't understand about this incident. Everything concerning boarding, seat assignments and the like is done via computers. Unless the deadhead crew just showed up, unannounced at the very last moment, why was this issue not solved before boarding?
Gate Agent gets the notification that there will be four deadhead crew members and the computer shows that there are no seats for them. Prior to boarding, make the announcement and start the bidding (here I think United tried to go cheap). If no takers and the rules allow involuntary bumping, then the bumping is done prior to boarding. The only people to be allowed to board the aircraft are those people who will have seats. To bring customers on board and then remove them after they are seated, shows poor planning. Unless it was truly a last minute change, which I doubt.
But in the age of computers, this should never have happened in the first place.
How far in advance did United know they needed a crew at the other end? I doubt they found this out 5 minutes before take off. There is a lot of steps in flight crew scheduling.
Another thing I don't understand. For what ever reason, United decided to involuntarily bump four people and three of them agreed. One of the selected passengers refused. Why did not United try to find another passenger that would be willing to be bumped? Did they even ask? Maybe if they increased the bid, they could have gotten someone else to leave and there is no problem.
It seemed like the crew, once deciding on those four, were locked into their decision.
Unfortunately, neither side is especially motivated to tell the truth so we may never know what really happened and why.
But strategically it was handled poorly for United... and it did not need to be handled poorly.
-
I heard that the 4 crew requested the seats after the boarding was completed. So United now changed that procedure and will no longer allow bumping to occur once you've boarded.
I agree that others should have been asked and the offered amount raised until they got someone to accept it. Maybe they were rushed because the plane was now late from taking off and already behind schedule. So they made an unfeeling, rushed decision to throw the guy off even claiming to the police that the guy was unruly when he wasn't.
-
If it makes any difference, it appears that both the flight and the must-fly crew were from United's regional affiliate Republic Airlines.