After UA dragging incident, senator introduces bill with more passenger protection

[zenkai]

Source



Sen. Chris Van Hollen has introduced legislation to respond to the United Airlines incident in which a passenger was forcibly removed from his flight on Sunday.

The Maryland Democrat’s “Customers Not Cargo Act” would ban airlines from forcibly removing passengers after they’ve already boarded the plane if it’s overbooked or airline employees are trying to fly as passengers.

“We were all shocked and outraged this week when United Airlines forcibly and brutally removed Dr. David Dao from Flight 3411,” Van Hollen wrote in a letter to his Senate colleagues. “We should act immediately to ensure that airlines cannot force passengers who have already boarded to leave the plane in order to free up seats for others. Instead, they must provide sufficient incentives to encourage passengers to voluntarily deplane.”

The senator pointed out that the Transportation Department has regulations that make clear that passengers must be compensated when they are involuntarily bumped prior to boarding a plane.

“It is outrageous that airlines can bodily remove passengers after boarding rather than providing appropriate incentives to encourage volunteers. Airlines should resolve these common overbooking issues prior to boarding,” he said.

The measure would seek to update a Transportation Department rule that prohibits airlines from removing passengers and caps incentives to get volunteers to change their flights before boarding. The rule currently says that for domestic travel, if airlines offer alternate transportation that arrives one to two hours after the original arrival time, the passenger is entitled to 200 percent of the fare, but no more than $675. If the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that arrives less than two hours before the original arrival time, the passenger is entitled to 400 percent of the fare, but no more than $1,350. There are similar rules for international flights.

This is what I was hoping would be the result of the whole fiasco, better rights. It's one thing to deny someone boarding, it's another thing to remove someone already seated and their luggage put away.

[Jimmy Thick]

Meh, this is getting blown way out of proportion.

I would rather that guy who get his ass kicked get a little settlement than have legislation which could increase the price of airfare, which would happen because the excuse would be since seats could possibly go unfilled they are losing money as a wasted revenue producing resource, ie, the empty seat.

Give the 69 year old turd some cash, but leave my airfare as low as possible.


Jimmy Thick- <---Frequent flyer, and world traveller, and international lover.

[Krigaren]

Meh, this is getting blown way out of proportion.

I would rather that guy who get his ass kicked get a little settlement than have legislation which could increase the price of airfare, which would happen because the excuse would be since seats could possibly go unfilled they are losing money as a wasted revenue producing resource, ie, the empty seat.

Give the 69 year old turd some cash, but leave my airfare as low as possible.


Jimmy Thick- <---Frequent flyer, and world traveller, and international lover.

Assuming that prices would go up from this is what's being blown way out of proportion.

What happened on the UA flight was, by all accounts, an extreme outlier. When airlines bump passengers due to overbooking, it's almost always done before anyone boards the plane. One of UA's criteria for determining who to bump is based on who arrived first. If someone is already seated on the plane and another person who was overbooked shows up, it's pretty clear who will (or should) end up getting bumped in that situation.

The only reason the UA situation turned into what it did, is because they were trying to remove paying customers, who had already been checked in and boarded, in favor of airline employees. Which, again, was another outlier situation.

The most likely answer to this isn't that UA will stop their overbooking practices, resulting in higher costs. The more likely answer is that airlines will be a lot more careful about who, when, and how they bump, and for what purposes.

[Exeris]

"airline employees are trying to fly as passengers."

Was it impossible for these employees take another flight?

[Kathandira]

This is what I was hoping would be the result of the whole fiasco, better rights. It's one thing to deny someone boarding, it's another thing to remove someone already seated and their luggage put away.

Would this need to be a federal regulation?

[Independent voter]

That passenger has had run ins with the law it turns out. He's a doctor but he's not perfect by a long shot.

[Draco-Onis]

This is what I was hoping would be the result of the whole fiasco, better rights. It's one thing to deny someone boarding, it's another thing to remove someone already seated and their luggage put away.

Actually what we should be shooting for is more competition in the airline industry, we basically have 5 airlines who are oligopolies and there are some serious barriers of entry. The reason flying has keep getting worse and worse is because there is no competition in the industry.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Meh, this is getting blown way out of proportion.

I would rather that guy who get his ass kicked get a little settlement than have legislation which could increase the price of airfare, which would happen because the excuse would be since seats could possibly go unfilled they are losing money as a wasted revenue producing resource, ie, the empty seat.

Give the 69 year old turd some cash, but leave my airfare as low as possible.


Jimmy Thick- <---Frequent flyer, and world traveller, and international lover.

It doesn't change anything other than stopping them from removing someone that has already boarded. It won't change the policy of overbooking...they just have to handle anyone getting bumped from the flight before they get on the plane...which is how this situation should have been handled in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

That passenger has had run ins with the law it turns out. He's a doctor but he's not perfect by a long shot.

Whatever his history is immaterial.

- - - Updated - - -

"airline employees are trying to fly as passengers."

Was it impossible for these employees take another flight?

Apparently the employees were needed to crew another flight at the destination.

[Krigaren]

That passenger has had run ins with the law it turns out. He's a doctor but he's not perfect by a long shot.

100% irrelevant.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Can't wait to see the reaction to this from the "United did nothing wrong" and "This won't result in anything changing" crowd

[shrunken]

I realize Democrats have no choice in the matter considering the current political landscape, but as soon as the original story came out the first thing I thought of (and laughed about) was which party was going to win the race to propose some legislation and garner a bit of goodwill.

[ati87]

Assuming that prices would go up from this is what's being blown way out of proportion.

What happened on the UA flight was, by all accounts, an extreme outlier. When airlines bump passengers due to overbooking, it's almost always done before anyone boards the plane. One of UA's criteria for determining who to bump is based on who arrived first. If someone is already seated on the plane and another person who was overbooked shows up, it's pretty clear who will (or should) end up getting bumped in that situation.

The only reason the UA situation turned into what it did, is because they were trying to remove paying customers, who had already been checked in and boarded, in favor of airline employees. Which, again, was another outlier situation.

The most likely answer to this isn't that UA will stop their overbooking practices, resulting in higher costs. The more likely answer is that airlines will be a lot more careful about who, when, and how they bump, and for what purposes.

Why are people talking about this like if it was normal?

It's not bloody normal to overbook a flight and then to kick them out! Airlines would never have dared to pull something even a fraction of this crap in Europe.

[Travis B]

Two questions...

1. Why did United not offer the maximum of $1350 before deciding to involuntarily remove passengers from the flight? Chances are at least a few people would have taken that offer.

2. Why the hell does the law put a maximum on how much money a passenger can receive for giving up their seat? I don't have an issue with airlines overbooking to keep flights as full as possible, but in the event that all the passengers show up, they should be able to keep increasing the amount until enough people take the offer. They shouldn't have to stop at $1350. If $2000 or $3000 is what it takes for someone to give up their seat, then so be it. That's a drop in the bucket for the airlines.

[Jimmy Thick]

An airline is a private business, if a airline thinks someone is causing a disturbance they have every right to remove them, even if its a paying customer. My personal feeling is United had every right to do what they did to the guy who got his ass kicked, if there was not a video of it no one would even care, the media is making this out to be more than it really is.

Its this simple.

Guy got on plane, guy was told he had to leave, guy refused and became belligerent, guy gets ass kicked. /end.

In reality, once he came back on board with whats an obviously staged act where he cries he wants to go home, the guy should have went to jail.


This is the power of social media and how it could ruin a company or God forbid someone life.

Over nothing.


Jimmy Thick- Not fighting for big corporations, fighting for the little guy.

[ati87]

I realize Democrats have no choice in the matter considering the current political landscape, but as soon as the original story came out the first thing I thought of (and laughed about) was which party was going to win the race to propose some legislation and garner a bit of goodwill.

Oh please you honestly think that Republicans would even bother adding more consumer protection? They have made their raison d'être to gut any sort of consumer protection.

[shrunken]

Oh please you honestly think that Republicans would even bother adding more consumer protection? They have made their raison d'être to gut any sort of consumer protection.

The only thing Republicans are guilty of is being slower than this congressman from Maryland. The truth is that all of them would burn that passenger in effigy if it guaranteed their reelection.

[Jimmy Thick]

Given that United was apparently in the wrong from start to finish and is likely about to get their ass handed to them with a lawsuit, this seems to be an unnecessary response.

What are the details of United Airlines contract of carriage? United could probably not have to pay a dime. They will though because of public backlash, but chances are, they are in the right.


Jimmy Thick- Gutless CEO.

[Crissi]

This probably should just be an update to the United thread, since its already devolving into the same kind of conversation

closing