United overbooked a flight so they dragged a passenger off the plane

[I Push Buttons]

I would argue that the people who got off like tame little sheep were the unreasonable ones.

So people should throw tantrums and resist the police when they don't get their way?

And people wonder why our police shoot so many idiots.

[Allybeboba]

Some of you guys really just missed the boat. People are claiming "they should have offered more", they offered all they were legally required to offer. The maximium they are required to offer is $1,350. If no-one takes the cash, they can call the cops, which they did. The cops roughed the guy up. The carrier did nothing wrong, the cops are going to get sued. The guy is going to walk away with well over $1,350. End of story.

The airline did exactly what was within policy. Even the articles have said that.

[alturic]

Let me fix it for you:

The minimum they are required to offer is $1,350

Semantics. They are hard for you, I see.

You now also show you don't understand definitions of words. HOWEVER, I think we can both agree, in this case, the maximum is also the minimum, considering all they are required to offer is up to $1,350.

[Allybeboba]

Yes THEY SHOULD HAVE OFFERED MORE. Just because they are legally allowed to be greedy mother fuckers does not make it right. They need to change the law to forbid forcing people to not get on a flight they paid for.

No, WE need to change that law.

[Kellhound]

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that you can take anyone to court for anything. Doesn't mean you have a case. :P

Actually, DOT seems to think if being forced from your flight is sufficiently harmful, you absolutely have a case so long as you dont accept their initial compensation offer.

[Wyrt]

So people should throw tantrums and resist the police when they don't get their way?

And people wonder why our police shoot so many idiots.

When did he throw a tantrum?

[GennGreymane]

You now also show you don't understand definitions of words. HOWEVER, I think we can both agree, in this case, the maximum is also the minimum, considering all they are required to offer is up to $1,350.

I wanna see the contract. They are required to offer 1,350. That means they are required to go to this person and say, we offer you 1,350. That does not necessarily mean they they cant offer more, based on how you are wording it, it simply means they can offer 1,350 minimum.

[sonololo]

You now also show you don't understand definitions of words. HOWEVER, I think we can both agree, in this case, the maximum is also the minimum, considering all they are required to offer is up to $1,350.

Is English isn't your mother tongue?

They are required to offer $1350, and that's a MINIMUM.

IT IS NOT A MAXIMUM.

""DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily.""

What in the "minimum obligation" you do not understand?

Sorry, you lost.

[alturic]

I cannot believe that people defend the airline.

This is very rare case.
The airline can easily raise the reward to $1300.
Someone will take it.

The airline could easily raise the reward to a year of flights, everyday, first-class, anywhere in the world. However, all they are required to offer the passenger, is up to $1,350.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did they offer 1350?

The max offered was an 800$ voucher...but keep moving your goal posts to dig yourself out of a stupid hole.

Because they weren't required to offer any more than what they did?

[Kellhound]

So people should throw tantrums and resist the police when they don't get their way?

And people wonder why our police shoot so many idiots.

When they are being forced off a plane they paid to fly on so the airline can make more profit? Absolutely.

[Allybeboba]

Where did they offer 1350?

The max offered was an 800$ voucher...but keep moving your goal posts to dig yourself out of a stupid hole.

We don't know what they gave the people that were forcibly removed. We can only presume they were given $1350 min.

[Kellhound]

The airline could easily raise the reward to a year of flights, everyday, first-class, anywhere in the world. However, all they are required to offer the passenger, is up to $1,350.

- - - Updated - - -



Because they weren't required to offer any more than what they did?

We get it, you support the airline's ability to fuck people over in order to make more profit. That doesnt make it right, just legal.

[Wiyld]

The airline could easily raise the reward to a year of flights, everyday, first-class, anywhere in the world. However, all they are required to offer the passenger, is up to $1,350.

- - - Updated - - -



Because they weren't required to offer any more than what they did?

Im beginning to agree with the other guy...you don't speak very good english.

They offered an 800$ voucher....where the fuck are you reading 1350?

[sonololo]

The required compensation is 400% of your ticket price or $1,350, whichever is lower. That dollar figure is a cap on the 400%, not a minimum unto itself. This prevents them from having to pay out thousands of dollars for tickets that start out near $1,000.

Absolutely. The point in that isn't really limits upper level, after all, just mandates a lower level.

[Allybeboba]

When did he throw a tantrum?

I clearly heard him shrieking like a little girl.

[Wyrt]

I clearly heard him shrieking like a little girl.

Because he was being assaulted.

[buck008]

So people should throw tantrums and resist the police when they don't get their way?

And people wonder why our police shoot so many idiots.

He didn't throw a tantrum. He paid for a seat. He has a reasonable expectation to receive the service he paid for, which was a seat on a flight at that specific day and time. The airline needed someone to do them a favor because they sold more tickets than they had. That is not the responsibility of the consumer. Sometimes people need to be where they need to be more than they need a couple extra dollars. No one acted out, and the force they used was absolutely not required in the given situation.

[xenogear3]

I cannot believe people make fun of this "doctor".
He clearly knows the law.

Airline offered $800, not $1350.
He refused to leave.

He is smart.
At minimum, he will get $1350.

If he is hurt, the airline will pay the medical bill.

[alturic]

Is English isn't your mother tongue?

They are required to offer $1350, and that's a MINIMUM.

IT IS NOT A MAXIMUM.



What in the "minimum obligation" you do not understand?

Sorry, you lost.

Ok, you really seem to have a hard time understanding words.

1.) They are only required to offer you up to $675 for the second bullet-point.

2.) They are only required to offer you up to $1,350, for the second bullet-point.

You are either agreeing with me, but simply saying they should have offered more, which they weren't required to, or you are saying the DOT site is wrong. The point I'm making, which you keep seeming to refute, is that they absolute most a carrier is, now this is the key word here, required to offer a passenger who they bump from a flight, is $1,350. However, and I don't know about this particular case, it seems he fell into bullet-point #2, since they offered $800 and no-one took it. Now, follow along here, that would mean that $800 they offered was $125 more, than they were required to offer.

Now, let me break-down the math for you.

I have am required to keep 675 condoms in my dresser drawer for the nights I party. I bring 800 girls to the party. I need 125 more condoms in order to not re-use a single condom on any individual girl. However, I am only required to keep 675 condoms in my drawer.

Of course, they could just be totally fucked and they were trying to low-ball out of the $1350, which would be even funnier with the publicy, presumable fine for not following regulations, etc.

[Wiyld]

The ultimate point with all this is...

This situation was caused 100% by United.

Instead of making the situation right by their customers they called in the police to manhandle a customer and 'make it go away'.