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

[Deleted]

Fair enough, but then expect airfaires to increase accordingly. The reality is that we all benefit due to this practice, the consequence being a very small chance that we might be inconvenienced, for which we'll even be fairly compensated.

Yes, a perfectly reasonable request. To accept free hotel accomodation and $800 in return for waiting an extra day. Fair, enough, no one really wanted to do that, but at the same time someone needed to. Sorry, but what we have here is plane full of people operating with the mental maturity of toddlers instead of like responsible, sensible, rational adults. Had I been on that flight I would have taken the $800. Not for the money, but because it was apparent that someone needed to step up and stop pretending to be a special snowflake that desperately needed to get to his/her destination.

Regarding your first paragraph.From experience United is the worst overbooker in the business. I do not see that in their rates, so I'm guessing their stockholders do...

As to your second paragraph, if they actually paid $ 800 people might take them up on the offer. I actually inquired on my last flight with them from EWR to AMS and what they offered was vouchers with a time limit. If they'd offered cash I would have taken them up on it in a second. It's sneaky, because this way they can offer you something that looks good and costs them next to nothing. You'll just take an empty seat on the next flight or they bump someone on that flight. And when (if?) you use your vouchers it will just be on another overbooked flight.

[Raelbo]

The problem is, the additional passengers were flight crew for another one of the airline's flights that had not been scheduled to be part of that flight on time though. And instead of prioritizing customers and looking for a different way to get their employees to their destination, they decided it was more cost effective to place this burden on the customers instead. United could have always rented a car for their employees or tried to fly them there through a different airline.

Really, this is all irrelevant.

The passengers did not have the information at the time to make any sound judgement call as to why United was overbooked. The relevant information they needed to know was that someone needed to get off the plane for the flight to happen, but all the passengers believed it should not be them. Like I said, Narcissism.

[Wyrt]

Really, this is all irrelevant.

The passengers did not have the information at the time to make any sound judgement call as to why United was overbooked. The relevant information they needed to know was that someone needed to get off the plane for the flight to happen, but all the passengers believed it should not be them. Like I said, Narcissism.

Yes, United does seem to have a bit of an ego problem. Hopefully they just go bankrupt.

[Raelbo]

Regarding your first paragraph.From experience United is the worst overbooker in the business. I do not see that in their rates, so I'm guessing their stockholders do...

This may be true, but imagine a law was passed that made it illegal to overbook. The price of all airfaires would increase.

As to your second paragraph, if they actually paid $ 800 people might take them up on the offer. I actually inquired on my last flight with them from EWR to AMS and what they offered was vouchers with a time limit. If they'd offered cash I would have taken them up on it in a second. It's sneaky, because this way they can offer you something that looks good and costs them next to nothing. You'll just take an empty seat on the next flight or they bump someone on that flight. And when (if?) you use your vouchers it will just be on another overbooked flight.

Fair enough point. I was not aware of this and this is something they probably should be taken to task on (assuming it's true).

[Wyrt]

This may be true, but imagine a law was passed that made it illegal to overbook. The price of all airfaires would increase.

They should just pay their CEO less to make up for the difference.

[sonololo]

As to your second paragraph, if they actually paid $ 800 people might take them up on the offer. I actually inquired on my last flight with them from EWR to AMS and what they offered was vouchers with a time limit. If they'd offered cash I would have taken them up on it in a second. It's sneaky, because this way they can offer you something that looks good and costs them next to nothing. You'll just take an empty seat on the next flight or they bump someone on that flight. And when (if?) you use your vouchers it will just be on another overbooked flight.

I'll chime in. NEVER take vouchers, mainly because they have very low priority, and only work if the flight has free seats. A paying customer overrides the voucher, and on some directions there is almost zero of free seats. So you then are sitting with a worthless voucher, that can go only in trash.

So that's all, only cash to go.

[Deleted]

This may be true, but imagine a law was passed that made it illegal to overbook. The price of all airfaires would increase.

Fair enough point. I was not aware of this and this is something they probably should be taken to task on (assuming it's true).

It's true alright. I asked for cash, but someone else accepted their vouchers. So I had no chance to see if they would budge.

Also remember this was voluntary they can offer what they like. This guy is actually entitled to a cash payout by law based on his ticket price, since it was - obviously - involuntary.

[Noradin]

I'll chime in. NEVER take vouchers, mainly because they have very low priority, and only work if the flight has free seats. A paying customer overrides the voucher, and on some directions there is almost zero of free seats. So you then are sitting with a worthless voucher, that can go only in trash.

So that's all, only cash to go.

For this reason giving out vouchers in this manner is illegal in the EU, if I'm not mistaken.

[Magicpot]

According to someone on reddit, the doctor that was dragged out of the plane was convicted on multiple drug distribution felonies and was given 5 years probation on that as well as temporarily lost his license over it. The reddit guy provided this link as proof: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

[sonololo]

According to someone on reddit, the doctor that was dragged out of the plane was convicted on multiple drug distribution felonies and was given 5 years probation on that as well as temporarily lost his license over it. The reddit guy provided this link as proof: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

"finally arranging to provide controlled substance prescriptions to him in exchange for sexual acts"

Oh god.

Though, occupation of the passenger is irrelevant to this discussion...

[Noradin]

According to someone on reddit, the doctor that was dragged out of the plane was convicted on multiple drug distribution felonies and was given 5 years probation on that as well as temporarily lost his license over it. The reddit guy provided this link as proof: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

And this is relevant to the behaviour of the airline how?
Is United some kind of behaviour correction facility now?

Moreover, this looks like private correspondence, how come it is provided to the public?
Is there any proof it is real?
I won't accuse United of orchestrating this but they are the ones who seem to have the best motive to want anything discrediting his character out there as deflection just now.

This makes them look potentially criminal.
On the other hand, it is unlike they are so recklessly risking their reputation, because if they are shown to be behind this they are in deep shit.

[Magicpot]

And this is relevant to the behaviour of the airline how?
Is United some kind of behaviour correction facility now?

No but it lends credence to their assertion that he behaved way out of line.

[Wyrt]

According to someone on reddit, the doctor that was dragged out of the plane was convicted on multiple drug distribution felonies and was given 5 years probation on that as well as temporarily lost his license over it. The reddit guy provided this link as proof: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

Why do the asshats on reddit always feel the need to dig into every person that does something? How is this guy's arrest in 2003 at all relevant to what happened to him on the United flight?

[Pann]

Really, this is all irrelevant.

The passengers did not have the information at the time to make any sound judgement call as to why United was overbooked. The relevant information they needed to know was that someone needed to get off the plane for the flight to happen, but all the passengers believed it should not be them. Like I said, Narcissism.

It is not the passengers' problem. United caused the issue it is on them to find a solution not get their hired goons to beat up a randomly picked person

[draykorinee]

This guy is going to get one massive cheque in the post.

[Belize]

No but it lends credence to their assertion that he behaved way out of line.

We have everything on video...

Decade old document don't lend credence to anything in this case.

[GreenJesus]

The reason the CEO released that statement without anything referencing the asian doctor, is because in court the company will be held liable for anything they say on this situation. If they admit guilt or association with the incident they can be held liable. (Remember Danny Rand in Iron Fist with the women who went to him and said her kids got cancer and he said he is so sorry?)

[Noradin]

No but it lends credence to their assertion that he behaved way out of line.

No. It doesn't.

It lends credence to the suspicion that they abuse the access to personal data and the money they are provided by their customers to launch character assasinations when someone catches them doing something that might damage their reputation/profits.

The only way this information can be construed as "relevant" is as a deflection, an ad hominem attack against the man himself and everyone who testifies on his behalf ("how could they take the side of this horrible criminal, they must be sympathisiers of his crimes").

[Noradin]

The reason the CEO released that statement without anything referencing the asian doctor, is because in court the company will be held liable for anything they say on this situation. If they admit guilt or association with the incident they can be held liable. (Remember Danny Rand in Iron Fist with the women who went to him and said her kids got cancer and he said he is so sorry?)

I pity anyone having to live within such a disturbing "justice" system.

- - - Updated - - -

They did not get their hired goons. They asked the aviation police that was stationed there to do their job and they failed to do it properly. From the data at hand (which may also not be the entire story) the only thing United seems to be liable for is not presenting those who were involuntarily removed from the flight with the written guide presenting their responsibilities to those involuntarily removed. The removal was otherwise lawful but carried out shamefully by the police.

The whole thing was a shame for United in the first place, technically lawful or not.

[Noradin]

It is and thus they will take a PR cost. But legally their liabilities are very limited.

Then that is something for the legislative to correct.