United Airlines: Passenger violently removed due to overbooking

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Presumably they would be removed in a professional manner that would not cause them harm. Such a thing is entirely possible.

That still relies on them leaving peacefully and of their own accord. Dao had that option, but was too stubborn and aggressive to take it. If the drunk and rowdy group had been stubborn and aggressive, in all likelihood they would have been injured in the process of their removal. To remove an uncooperative person from a confined space such as an airline seat, will end up with an injury.

Originally Posted by nomadking

That still relies on them leaving peacefully and of their own accord. Dao had that option, but was too stubborn and aggressive to take it. If the drunk and rowdy group had been stubborn and aggressive, in all likelihood they would have been injured in the process of their removal. To remove an uncooperative person from a confined space such as an airline seat, will end up with an injury.

Which the person(s) causing the injury would still be liable to assault charges and or being sued.

The force used has to proportionate to the reason for removal. I'd say a passenger losing two front teeth, suffering concussion and having his nose broken was not proportionate to the circumstances and that was, Dr Dao being told his seat was needed for a crew member, a seat he paid for.

Also, you say he was Aggressive? I saw no aggression. He was expressing his right to resist. I would do the same. Anyway, CEO has admitted wrong doing now so, case is pretty in favour of Dr Dao and so it should be.

From an article linked on the previous page ;

This will never happen again," Mr Munoz [CEO] said. "We are not going to put a law enforcement official onto a plane to take them off … to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger. We can't do that.

Three officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation have been put on leave following the incident. The officers will remain on leave while investigators are “reviewing the details surrounding the incident,”

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Effectively self-inflicted.

Yes I saw him repeatedly smashing his own face into the arm rest.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Yes, it shouldn't have happened. He should have left of his own accord as MANY others do. He wasn't unexpectedly hauled from his seat, he had plenty of notice and opportunity to leave without injury.

If people are required to move from somewhere, for whatever reason, should they simply be allowed to stay? Recipe for chaos.

Omg he was given the opportunity to leave without injury, did they actually say that, leave now or well injure you, presumably when he didn't leave that made it okay to kick the crap out of him then, those injuries are indefensible, try imagining if it was your dad.

[1andrew1]

Good analysis of the CEO's interview, particularly telling is the delay in which he answered the question "Do you think that he's at fault in any way?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39583378

[AndyCambs]

Interesting article here - "calculated misery".
We're paying more for a lesser service, and airlines are intent on making us pay more.
Would you happily pay extra when going out to dine to ensure that all your party are at the same table?

So airlines make the basic product unappealing so that you feel obliged to pay the extras. I've been travelling on Air Canada for some years, 15 years ago, we were allowed pre-assigned seats and two pieces of luggage each weighing 32kg. Then the weight dropped to 24kg, and now it's just one piece, with the second piece costing £60.
Now Air Canada started to charge for pre-assigned seats CA$30 or from £18 (that's per seat, so if you have a connection, then it's per leg - and soon adds up).
I guess the next will be to charge a fee for paying on credit cards (British Airways already do), maybe charging for alcoholic drinks on board (United and American Airlines have for some years), cut back on food (British Airways cut out the second snack on 6-8 hour flights in the lower class fares).

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Interesting article here - "calculated misery".
We're paying more for a lesser service, and airlines are intent on making us pay more.
Would you happily pay extra when going out to dine to ensure that all your party are at the same table?

So airlines make the basic product unappealing so that you feel obliged to pay the extras. I've been travelling on Air Canada for some years, 15 years ago, we were allowed pre-assigned seats and two pieces of luggage each weighing 32kg. Then the weight dropped to 24kg, and now it's just one piece, with the second piece costing £60.
Now Air Canada started to charge for pre-assigned seats CA$30 or from £18 (that's per seat, so if you have a connection, then it's per leg - and soon adds up).
I guess the next will be to charge a fee for paying on credit cards (British Airways already do), maybe charging for alcoholic drinks on board (United and American Airlines have for some years), cut back on food (British Airways cut out the second snack on 6-8 hour flights in the lower class fares).

The answer is quite simple.

As long as travellers are willing to pay then airlines will happily screw you for every penny they can get out of you.

Just the same as any other business.

Once the people refuse to pay by not travelling then the price will come down.

Just the same as any other business.

As long as there are people willing to pay the price then nothing will change - and why should it?

[1andrew1]

Interesting short article

United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Interesting short article

United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline

are you sure that's not thumps more passengers

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Interesting short article

United bumps more passengers than any other large American airline

The main thing that should be noticed is "Involuntary denials of boarding (IDB)".

This was not the case recently, the passenger had boarded and was seated. United have no excuse for what happened.

Seems United Airlines are just good at being Assholes....

A bride and groom headed to Costa Rica for their wedding got kicked off their United flight out of Houston on Saturday afternoon.

The incident took place on United Airlines Flight 1737 which was headed from Houston (IAH) to Liberia, Costa Rica (LIR).

The couple, along with their friends, were flying from Salt Lake City and had a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

Michael Hohl, the groom, said he and his fiancé, Amber Maxwell, were the last to board the plane.

According to Hohl, they noticed a man was spread across their row napping when they approached their seats, 24 B and C.

Not wanting to wake the man, Hohl said they decided to sit three rows up in seats 21 B and C. He said they didn't think it would matter because the flight was half full with multiple empty rows.

“We thought, 'Not a big deal, it’s not like we are trying to jump up into a first-class seat," said Hohl.“We were simply in an economy row a few rows above our economy seat.”

In a Boeing 737-800 like the one the couple was on, United considers Row 21 "economy plus," an upgrade.

After sitting, Hohl said a flight attendant approached and asked if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple explained they weren't and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead they were told they needed to return to their assigned seats.

Hohl said after complying with the flight attendant's demand, a U.S. Marshall came onto the plane and asked them to get off.

The couple cooperated and got off the plane without incident, but they still don't understand why.

"They said that we were being disorderly and a hazard to the rest of the flight, to the safety of the other customers," said Hohl.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride...ston/431644313

I think the use of US Air Marshall's is being abused here, they did not break the law and they cooperated, they shouldn't have done, I would have demanded they wake the man that was asleep in the allocated seats.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Mick

Seems United Airlines are just good at being Assholes....
http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride...ston/431644313

I think the use of US Air Marshall's is being abused here, they did not break the law and they cooperated, they shouldn't have done, I would have demanded they wake the man that was asleep in the allocated seats.

Or, they were trying to have upgraded seats without paying for them in advance. They should have been duffed up before being dragged off for being disorderly. It probably didn't help that they decided to urgently consummate their marriage in economy plus

Originally Posted by Kursk

Or, they were trying to have upgraded seats without paying for them in advance. They should have been duffed up before being dragged off

They offered, me personally would have woke the man in their seats, after all he did not pay for those seats so why didn't he get challenged ?

I think we should wait and see with that story. Something seems off about it. In the previous case it was quite clear what happened but here it seems unlikely they escalated it to the use of US Marshalls for the crime of sitting in another seat and then politely relocating....

But when pressed for comment UA said they offered to rebook the couples flight, you don't do that if they have been unruly and UA was within their right to throw them off.