United Airlines: Passenger violently removed due to overbooking

[Kursk]

What would have been the best way to resolve the situation?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Not sure she volunteered; she just wisely didn't physically resist like her husband. Just as well for the airline or it would have looked worse. Just wonder how they were picked ? Not sure I believe the airline that it was random. They seems to have been telling a lot of porkies.

To partly get themselves out of this they could make a declaration never to overbook flights again. This would set the cat amongst the pigeons in the airline industry, others would have to follow suit. Never understood overbooking anyway if you've paid in advance, surely they don't lose anything if you don't turn up. Its obscene profiteering. Happened to us once with a hotel in Spain where we'd booked and paid for months in advance; Mrs K kicked up a public fuss, they very wisely found a room suddenly...

He volunteered to go to originally, he wanted the 800 credits, it was only when he was told the next flight wasn't until the next day he wasn't happy and withdrew his offer

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

What would have been the best way to resolve the situation?

Pay someone, anyone, someone would've accepted an offer eventually

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Kursk

What would have been the best way to resolve the situation?

Give them a offer which they won't refuse.

[adzii_nufc]

Best way via hindsight of course.

Option 1, simply do not remove passengers for your staff or in other cases, do not allow overbooking of flights.

Option 2, given that it seems clear this gentleman was prioritising getting back to his place of work over monetary compensation I'd have continually upped the offer until someone else accepted. In hindsight you can guarantee they wish they'd done this.

Option 3 if both are not applicable, removal of the gentleman by reasonable means, You literally apply a clamp manoeuvre with either one or two officers to either arm, meaning you can lift without causing massive distress to the receiving party, if the passenger then insists on struggling you can then bind his legs with the third officer if required, at this point you still have absolutely no justifiable way to inflict damage on a person, you then merely carry or escort the man off the plane, it's literally that simple assuming he hasn't retaliated with assault. Assuming he does retaliate with assault then you'd have the legal justification to drag him the way they did if they can provide evidence it was required for the situation, which it would be at that point.

Given the tight space on the plane, it may be necessary for one person to lift the gentleman out of the seat before trying to apply various manoeuvres.

It's easy enough me saying option 3 but there's multiple factors, heat of the moment (aggression in this case as we seen) training (Whether they've even been effectively trained for both non physical and physical removal) which of course you'd think they should be, but it's whether they even remember it. So it's not just a case of saying what they should've done but pointing out everything wrong with what they did do and aggression is right at the forefront. Aggression is absolutely useless in security or policing and serves no usefulness to anyone. Assertiveness is the one.

If you remove the plane equation from this, I dealt with something very similar at the 2012 Olympics whilst on VIP detail for the event. A guy with a ticket in a place I didn't want him to be despite the fact he had a reason to be exactly where he was. We solved it using aspects of option 2.

If Option 3 is a success though, the headline changes from Passenger assaulted to either no headline with minimal coverage or Passenger ejected. That's an absolutely massive change for both the company and the police.

Originally Posted by denphone

Give them a offer which they won't refuse.

Well they did do that to be fair.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well they did do that to be fair.

There is a right way and a wrong way as we know and of course they chose the way to damnation one could say.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Pay someone, anyone, someone would've accepted an offer eventually

True enough (especially if that money-grabber Mick is on board ) but I do like option 3 below .

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Option 3 if both are not applicable, removal of the gentleman by reasonable means, You literally apply a clamp manoeuvre with either one or two officers to either arm, meaning you can lift without causing massive distress to the receiving party, if the passenger then insists on struggling you can then bind his legs with the third officer if required, at this point you still have absolutely no justifiable way to inflict damage on a person, you then merely carry or escort the man off the plane, it's literally that simple assuming he hasn't retaliated with assault. Assuming he does retaliate with assault then you'd have the legal justification to drag him the way they did if they can provide evidence it was required for the situation, which it would be at that point.

Originally Posted by Kursk

True enough (especially if that money-grabber Mick is on board ) but I do like option 3 below .

Option 3 would lead to where we are now : it's bad and it's wrong.

And yes I would grab what I can : They are inconveniencing me remember so they can pay up accordingly. And now that I know removal by force would damage them more than them moving me, they'd better make the offer worthwhile.

[1andrew1]

You would have thought $1,000 would be enough to get someone.
Elsewhere, someone has said you can drive between the two airports in 4 hours. Not perfect, but could the staff have got there by car instead or be booked onto a competitor's flight?

Edit: Here's a great chart showing what the airline might have done.
https://qz.com/955853/flowchart-of-n...tm_source=qzfb

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Mick

Option 3 would lead to where we are now : it's bad and it's wrong.

And yes I would grab what I can : They are inconveniencing me remember so they can pay up accordingly. And now that I know removal by force would damage them more than them moving me, they'd better make the offer worthwhile.

Option 3 If done correctly. They legally remove him from the plane on account of trespass and he has absolutely no case in court except for a punt at the airline for kicking him off. As soon as you've refused to leave you've also committed a separate offence relating to refusal to leave an aircraft when asked by law enforcement. People can record it and circulate it but by law these men and the airline would have nothing to answer for.

We know its morally wrong. I'm just trying to explain the legal way to remove someone in this scenario.

It's up to the airline to exhaust every available option before having to call for a verbal or physical removal, that's something i don't believe they did.

I'm absolutely certain scenarios like this unfold all the time and because we're not hearing about them it's because they're being dealt with properly and legally. Just in this case you've accidentally called Mr Angry to remove the passenger and Mr Angry isn't very good at his job. He can't remove a 69 year old man off a plane safely. So why is Mr Angry in law enforcement because he's evidendly unable to protect and serve. Even when physically removing someone, they're in your care and you have a duty of care. He failed. Not only did he assault him, he then lost this man.

Again this is all in relation to legal removal and not the practices of United Airlines which are morally wrong.

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Option 3 If done correctly. They legally remove him from the plane on account of trespass and he has absolutely no case in court except for a punt at the airline for kicking him off. As soon as you've refused to leave you've also committed a separate offence relating to refusal to leave an aircraft when asked by law enforcement. People can record it and circulate it but by law these men and the airline would have nothing to answer for.

I think the airline still would be accountable. If the person has boarded they're not allowed to bounce them IIRC. Now they can still tell them to leave and they have to obey but they've broken the regulations that govern these things and would have to answer for that.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the airline still would be accountable. If the person has boarded they're not allowed to bounce them IIRC. Now they can still tell them to leave and they have to obey but they've broken the regulations that govern these things and would have to answer for that.

They're allowed to bounce anyone for any reason for sufficient compensation and a re-booked flight. Only when they've exhausted their options can they carry this out. If he was removed safely, they can make claim they offered him both. It's then up to him to claim the offer was not good enough. That's the punt at the airline I mentioned. Even then, that scenario is still far better than what's actually happened.

Regulations exist but Airlines get far more leeway than we think.

Again though, I'm just going for legal repercussions of things. Lets say it did unfold that way and none of this blew up, I still however don't agree that the compensation was sufficient.

I spoke of an incident I was involved in but without the detail so as short as possible.

I was part of a 17 man team that toured the UK for the 2012 Olympics, we provided VIP security under a private company I don't wish to disclose other than it's not G4s, we were completely separate from them clowns. Our job was simple, Athlete guarding, close protection if you will. So one of our dates was my hometown and St James' Park the venue, two games, Mexico vs ??? (Can't quite remember) and Spain vs Honduras. So four of the 17, me being in that four had the Spanish Olympic football team sat in the VIP seats with several FIFA officials and Spanish Royalty housed in with them, somehow due to a clear error, A family of Honduras fans, two adults and two children had purchased tickets in the VIP section despite LOCOG not permitting them for sale for obvious reasons, they took their seats, without LOCOG accreditation (A badge allowing you to be in special areas) and then instantly recognized Juan Mata and proceeded to quickly approach him as you'd expect. I bolted up the stairs but allowed the now autograph signing to take place (We're not trying to escalate this to 100mph instantly) luckily the father spoke English and once I told him what the dilemma was here he started refusing to move. If I have to physically remove him, I have no choice to but eject a paying family from the Stadium. I compromised. I assured him no one would sit in the seats they'd paid for and then moved him and the rest of his family into corporate hospitality free of charge with access to the buffet with 4 temporary LOCOG badges. Security up there was provided by G4S, that's why everyone had badges. I passed an event programme to the players whom signed it, three recognizable players being Mata, De Gea and Iker Munian and then handed it to the family before the games finished.

That's an example of option 2 with a few differing factors. I found a resolution to the issue without the need to physically remove someone.

It matters because little over a year before that during a gig, I dragged a man out of a crowd and gave him the boot. He'd been throwing liquids at the stage. I'd approached him once and simply asked him to refrain, he did it again. I then applied what I could only describe as a half/full nelson hold and proceeded to drag him backwards through a crowd and out. The problem being, he showed absolutely no aggression, he was not physical, just drunk and non compliant. I had absolutely no justifiable grounds to do what I did. I could've waited for a colleague and merely escorted him out via proper methods. I could've persuaded him to leave, I could've done countless things differently and frankly better but I really didn't, I failed miserably and put this gentleman at risk because I didn't follow my training and thought I knew far better what to do.

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

They're allowed to bounce anyone for any reason for sufficient compensation and a re-booked flight. Only when they've exhausted their options can they carry this out. If he was removed safely, they can make claim they offered him both. It's then up to him to claim the offer was not good enough. That's the punt at the airline I mentioned. Even then, that scenario is still far better than what's actually happened.

Yes but I think that has to be done before they board the plane, after all the problem should become apparent at the gate anyway when not everyone can get on. He had boarded and had gotten a seat.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes but I think that has to be done before they board the plane, after all the problem should become apparent at the gate anyway when not everyone can get on. He had boarded and had gotten a seat.

It should be but Airlines can bounce people in seats, again this isn't uncommon. Maybe this is the incident that will lead to a push to see rules enforced like they should be. I think it's one of those things that maybe you're completely right and this is the supposed rule, but it's become so common to bend it that it's basically snapped and no body cares anymore because it's all too common of an occurrence.

Just saw on news, all passengers on this particular flight are to get a full refund.

Dr. David Dao, is taking legal action against United Airlines for forceful removal. His lawyers have made an emergency request to preserve videos and cockpit voice recordings.

The papers, filed in Cook County courthouse, said: "After being duly processed by the ticket agent, checked in by the attendant and seated in his assigned passenger seat, Petitioner was forcibly dragged and removed from the said aircraft by City employees, sustaining personal injury."

http://news.sky.com/story/united-pas...moval-10835055