Hellobee Boards

I will also say that I strongly dislike (mild description) the use by corporations of public police forces against private citizens who have done nothing illegal. Instead of offering higher compensation to people to volunteer off the flight, the corporation instead determined it would use the police against private citizens in order to preserve profit margins.

Public police forces are not a profit-making or profit-keeping arm for corporations to employ when they screw up. United could have offered higher compensation in order to get people to give up their seats. Instead, they stopped at $800, determined they would allow people to board, knowing they would pull 4 off and then relied on the police to enforce their decision. Their response thus far seems to be that if you don’t obey, you get whatever happens, including physical violence.

At what price-point and profit-margin do corporations get to use police against private citizens? At what price-point and profit-margin are corporations expected to clean up their own messes and remedy their own self-created situations?

@MrsSCB: Exactly. Putting aside the violence completely and imagining that the police came on board, asked the man to get off and he did - - why does United or any corporation have the right to utilize public police forces in order to help keep a profit margin? United declined to offer additional compensation to fliers and let them board knowing that if anyone refused to then get off the plane, they would just call the police to enforce for them. Why should they get to utilize our police against us, instead of spending their own money to remedy their own self-created situation?

Gah, infuriating; the entire thing. Totally agree with you re: the CEO's response as well.

@travellingbee: I actually saw an interview with a passenger this morning where he (I believe the guy who took the video) said the security guards who board the plane actually handled it well in all the moments leading up to the physical removal. Calm, manors when speaking to the passenger, etc.

I have several times been on a flight where gate agents came on and asked for volunteers. Volunteers have always spoke up so involuntary removal has never been required. I myself was attempting to board a flight one time and my ticket declined - I was told to see the desk...the desk informed me that due to weather the flight had weight restrictions - 10 of us were denied boarding. Annoying, sure - but am I going to throw a fit...nope.

I think all parties could have handled the situation better. *United could have had better communication. I have seen some reports that they were offering $1K vouchers...if those are true I think they offered sufficient incentive. *The security officers could have been more careful when removing the passenger. *The passenger could have realized air travel is not a right. Was his right to that seat any stronger than the rights of the passengers on the next flight who weren't going to have their crew to take off? 3 other people un-happily complied with the same instructions...

Its a bad situation all around. Only thing I have not read was when the flight of the 4 crew members was scheduled to depart...that could change my opinion on Uniteds approach.

Lucky for me I have been boycotting United since the 2005 season when they put my personal safety in question on a reckless flight...so I'm ahead of the boycotting game in this case!

Apparently this was a United Express flight which was operated with a contractor. Not that it changes anything, but he has some interesting insights.

http://www.askthepilot.com/passenger-forcibly-removed/

I just closed my United/Chase credit card account. I signed up for it years ago and it helped with the traveling since DH and I had a long-distance dating relationship. Since we moved in together, we only fly Southwest when we travel. I was not a huge fan of United and this incident and how they handled it was the icing on top for me to close it.

Just thinking out loud here and playing devils advocate...

I wonder what the other passengers were thinking...the airline has told you "we are not leaving until we get this crew onboard...." they usually arent bluffing. 2 maybe 3 other people have left the plane. Further indication they are not bluffing. This man in discussions with airline personnel and security officers has divulged that he is a Dr and has patients to see...

Does anyone find it odd that not a single other passenger on that plane offered their seat? I dont know what I would have done in the situation...but I get the airline business to an extent from my work history, and I get flight attendants perspective to an extent as DH used to be one...more importantly I think if I heard a Dr was being asked to get off a flight who was concerned about seeing patients the following day...I'd like to think and hope my conscience would step in and if I could afford to be late in my arrival at my destination consider taking his spot - for everyones sake...?

@Mrs D: If I were travelling with my son and husband, I wouldn't give up my seat. If I were alone, possibly yes.

@Mrs D: I think the underlying problem to all of this was how EXTREMELY inconvenient the next flight was. If it was an hour or two later, or even first thing the next morning, I think a lot of people would be willing to give up their seat. But the next flight was not until 2pm the next afternoon. That's an extra night and most of an extra day stuck in Chicago-- which either means missing a day of work/vacation if Chicago is your home, or missing a day of work/being home after a trip if you were just visiting Chicago. That's a REALLY LONG TIME to be delayed. I certainly wouldn't do it for $800.

In my opinion the biggest issue here was that united let the passengers board the plane. What the hell happened there? How could something have so drastically changed in the 20 minutes between boarding starts and they close the gate that they had to kick 4 passengers off? If this had happened at the gate, there would not have been an incident. Maybe the guy would've complained/yelled, but there would have been absolutely no cause or need for physical intervention. I think there is also something psychologically different about being denied entry vs. kicked off. I know that before i board a plane i always have this feeling like.... i hope this all works out. Things aren't delayed/canceled/whatever. Once I'm strapped in a breathe a sigh of relief that we're on our way. Being denied the flight at that point would be WAY harder to accept.

Also united should've just offered more money. Due to the lateness of the next flight, they have to give bumped passengers 4x their ticket price anyways. The flight probably cost $250-300, and once it was clear that this guy was not going to willingly go would it have really been worse for them to offer $1500? $2000? To avoid this shitshow...? I think not.

Anyone who allows this debacle to occur in the day and age of cell phone videos deserves whatever grief they get. They handled the situation poorly and we ALL get to see it.

I think its safe to say the reason they did not do this before boarding was they were "hoping" 4 people would not board the full flight.

I have no crystal ball but I am guessing this man may have caused quite a scene if denied boarding as well. Potentially more than yelling. I can certainly see many scenarios where security may very well have been called even if this occurred off the airplane.

@Mrs D: Chances of 4 people having checked in but not actually board the flight are slim to none

Ahh. And now they dig into his past to reveal all his misdeeds - victim blame much?

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-dragged-off-flight-convicted-of-trading-drugs-for-sex/

@Mrs D: I might have just been too absorbed in the situation to even think hey, maybe I should just step up to avoid this escalating.

We booked a flight with United just last week. I wish I could unbook it and give our business to someone else!

It's going to take a miracle for them to recover from this incident. They are losing so much money.

@travellingbee: thank you- NYP!

I was on a flight to jackson hole last year at christmas from newark (on united). A family of 4(2 kids, 2 adults) from Zurich flying via EWR to jackson hole had boarded the plane and were seated in their seats. A united rep came on and told the family that 2 of them had to get off. Two could stay. They were GOBSMACKED. And english obviously wasn't their first language but they knew enough to argue (and also knew enough to realize they would lose, no matter what). So the parents had to decide if all 4 got off together, or leave 2 to continue on. The father and son stayed (because they had prepaid ski school for the son). The wife and 3 yo daughter got off. My husband and I were floored. Meanwhile, there is only one non stop a day to jackson hole on united and then next available flight wasn't getting them in until the next day.
DH is 1K with united, which means none of this BS will ever happen to him, but that just gets me more riled up. Id prefer not to give them my money at all.

@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I'm not doubting you read what you read, but I think there is a misunderstanding or a writer misreported something there. I don't think that is actually a rule. Maybe you/they were referring to the DOT rule that passengers can demand a check instead of a voucher?

Here is an article about overbooking if anyone is interested:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/10/news/united-overbooking-policy/index.html

@travellingbee: well I already stated I don't condone violence either. I don't think anyone does. But this situation escalated because he refused to comply the first however many times he was ASKED to leave. It simply doesn't matter that HE thinks it's unfair or anyone else thinks it's crappy business practice. Sure, like others have said, stop patronizing them if you think they and their rules and customer service all suck. (Speaking of which, ALL airlines have had their run-ins with customers including Southwest. I think people tend to forget.) But it's United's rules, United has a right to run their business how they see fit within the law, and the man was on a United (well, a subsidiary's) plane. What else can any staff do if someone continuously refuses to leave their premises at their request? It becomes trespassing and that IS illegal. Whether you initially paid to be there or not. At some point the customer will have to be physically removed if they continue to resist. That's the general progression of escalation at ANY business that can throw you out, even after you've paid. Shops, theaters, Disney, pharmacy, hotel, restaurant. Just cause you've paid doesn't give you an infinite right to be at the business.

So not why offer more money to get people off? I can't begin to speculate why, but maybe the airlines have their own limit based on each circumstance. If I had dinner at a restaurant and found hair, I would expected to be comped the appetizer, entree or drinks but I wouldn't expect a voucher for 5 free dinners after that. In any case, it's THEIR seat and they get to decide how much they are willing to offer. For us to say, "if they increased the amount to X, someone on that flight would have volunteered" is simply speculation.

I'm surprised how many people (not just here but in general) are glossing over this man's own actions. Whatever happened to personal accountability? So something unfair happens, and you go full limp noodle toddler mode? This isn't normal response or behavior for an adult. It sucks he was bumped and he has every right to be upset but his response was beyond ridiculous. Be an adult and walk off on your own accord.

You guys do bring up a good point on why weren't passengers denied boarding instead of having to be pulled from their seats once they got on board? For one thing there are reports that he may have been denied boarding but went past the gate agent and then once he got to the plane he refused to leave. Who knows, none of us have the full facts. Does it matter whether you were denied boarding or if you were asked to leave 10 minutes later after you got to your seat? You'd be pissed either way, and legally you no have more more right to that seat at that point than you did back up in the gate area.

I can only surmise from what I've seen over the years - and yes I've seen it happen multiple times just purely from how many times I've flown - sometimes computers make errors and two people are assigned the same seat. The mistake isn't caught until the second passenger comes on the plane and sees someone sitting in "their" seat. Or somehow the computer allowed more people to board than seats available, or a seat broke last minute. I've had gate agents come on to a fully boarded plane and ask for volunteers or "voluntell" them to get off. Or maybe the crew was placed on the flight last minute. Not for lack of planning but because something popped up last minute.

@mae: 20 minutes is actually a long time in aviation! A lot of things can happen. And hell, you can be kicked off AFTER the door is closed. It's happened to me, it's happened to other people. Example - the weight and balance can't be calculated until boarding/loading the bags/fueling are all complete and then the crew finds out weight and balance is out of limits. Something's gonna have to go and sometimes it has to be people and/or bags because you need every drop of extra fuel for forecasted weather.

@truth bombs: it actually does happen all the time. People check in online and don't show up, people check in at the counter but don't make it through the airport in time, or people check in and make it through security and everything fine but then lose track of time at a bar or what have you. You are absolutely right that at the point where the airline decides passenger A has to deplane and they don't, it becomes trespassing.

Also I'd just like to reiterate that airlines don't bump paying customers for crews because the airline just loves their own employees so much or they want to screw customers. When a crew can't make it to their plane/destination, the schedule falls apart and not just for that one flight but possibly more down the line. That's why deadheading crew takes priority.

@Meow: I'll go out on a ledge here and say that yeah I do think the passenger should have complied and walked off. It's just part of the deal as things currently stand. And by the time it had been decided that he would be bumped, and he continued to refuse to leave, I don't know any other way they could have forced him to comply besides physically removing him. I don't like how they handled things surrounding it (yes I think they should have offered more) but yeah, I do think the passenger's responsibility at that point was to comply, no matter how unfair it was.

@pinkcupcake: It's the "American way" to find a minority at fault ... totally victim blaming!! Remember the whole gorilla incident (when the black child lived - the media uncovered his father's arrest record (even though the dad wasn't at the zoo with them)). Yet, after the alligator incident at Disney (where a white child was killed), the parents were completely spared from any scrutiny about their parenting or past.