United Airlines PR Disaster

[Mavric]

[Nebfanatic]

This is bad, but I didn't know it is that bad. Wowza, that is quite the L to take

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

I am 99% sure the answer is yes.

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

In that type of situation, if a passenger fights back, does she/he have a valid self-defense claim I wonder?

This makes no sense. If the answer is yes, which it is, and the airline ordered you to get off the plane, why would anyone have to put their hands on you? If you don't get up and leave on your own and they have the right to remove you....I don't understand how it comes to the type of physical removal we saw in this incident. Are you saying you would disobey their lawful order to get off their plane?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think United handled this extremely poorly on many fronts. But before we crucify them I think we should consider exactly what happened prior to the video snippets we've seen. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that they asked for volunteers, upped the offer for volunteers before they informed people somebody would be removed. And then I assume they asked this passenger to get off and then told him he would be removed forcibly, before they actually laid hands on him. United will lose in the court of public opinion but I don't see a scenario where the passenger was not in the wrong and being unnecessarily belligerent. Of course nobody wants to get off the plane. Everyone's time is important. But I'm guessing he had every opportunity in the world to prevent the melee we saw. I mean really, especially nowadays, who is going ignore a direct order from airline officials to get off a plane?

 

 

I was just curious and asking a mostly hypothetical question.

 

As to how it escalates into a physical confrontation? Pretty easily apparently. If I was in that situation, I have no idea how I'd react. I'd like to think I'd handle it with quiet dignity and grace, but I could also see myself losing my cool, especially if someone puts their hands on me.

[Landlord]

 

 

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

I am 99% sure the answer is yes.

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

In that type of situation, if a passenger fights back, does she/he have a valid self-defense claim I wonder?

This makes no sense. If the answer is yes, which it is, and the airline ordered you to get off the plane, why would anyone have to put their hands on you? If you don't get up and leave on your own and they have the right to remove you....I don't understand how it comes to the type of physical removal we saw in this incident. Are you saying you would disobey their lawful order to get off their plane?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think United handled this extremely poorly on many fronts. But before we crucify them I think we should consider exactly what happened prior to the video snippets we've seen. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that they asked for volunteers, upped the offer for volunteers before they informed people somebody would be removed. And then I assume they asked this passenger to get off and then told him he would be removed forcibly, before they actually laid hands on him. United will lose in the court of public opinion but I don't see a scenario where the passenger was not in the wrong and being unnecessarily belligerent. Of course nobody wants to get off the plane. Everyone's time is important. But I'm guessing he had every opportunity in the world to prevent the melee we saw. I mean really, especially nowadays, who is going ignore a direct order from airline officials to get off a plane?

 

 

 

 

I already used a black teen/cop analogy in regards to "journalists" digging up this doctor's past, but I see the scenario very similarly from a few different angles.

 

 

Everything you said is pretty much spot on, and the man was technically and, per policy, legally in the wrong for refusing. But, and it's a really big but. The two parties involved are a single individual who needs to work his profession and be reliable for his time, vs a massive corporation worth billions. So it is an extremely important caveat that United holds all of the power in the scenario, and in the words of Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility. Not only that, but while they were legally in the clear, United caused this mess by acting so nonsensically when they could have let all of the passengers stay on the flight AND let their airline save thousands of dollars at the same time by putting the crew members on a different flight instead of offering passengers $800 each with hotel fare.

 

 

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, the police analogy would be the scenario we've seen in many shootings of unarmed black boys where they technically broke a law, and they would have been fine if they just cooperated or whatever, but the police have all the power, have the greater responsibility, and fail to de-escalate.

[Landlord]

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

 

 

Somehow, that just doesn't surprise me one bit

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

 

I am 99% sure the answer is yes.

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

In that type of situation, if a passenger fights back, does she/he have a valid self-defense claim I wonder?

This makes no sense. If the answer is yes, which it is, and the airline ordered you to get off the plane, why would anyone have to put their hands on you? If you don't get up and leave on your own and they have the right to remove you....I don't understand how it comes to the type of physical removal we saw in this incident. Are you saying you would disobey their lawful order to get off their plane?

Don't get me wrong, I think United handled this extremely poorly on many fronts. But before we crucify them I think we should consider exactly what happened prior to the video snippets we've seen. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that they asked for volunteers, upped the offer for volunteers before they informed people somebody would be removed. And then I assume they asked this passenger to get off and then told him he would be removed forcibly, before they actually laid hands on him. United will lose in the court of public opinion but I don't see a scenario where the passenger was not in the wrong and being unnecessarily belligerent. Of course nobody wants to get off the plane. Everyone's time is important. But I'm guessing he had every opportunity in the world to prevent the melee we saw. I mean really, especially nowadays, who is going ignore a direct order from airline officials to get off a plane?

I was just curious and asking a mostly hypothetical question.

 

As to how it escalates into a physical confrontation? Pretty easily apparently. If I was in that situation, I have no idea how I'd react. I'd like to think I'd handle it with quiet dignity and grace, but I could also see myself losing my cool, especially if someone puts their hands on me.

That's kind of my point. Most people would be unhappy, some may lose their lose their cool but almost all would leave without anyone having to touch them. Given how this situation obviously escalated, I'm thinking this guy was a very rare case that got extremely belligerent and basically caused the physical confrontation we saw in the videos.

 

I'm not saying United couldn't have handled it better or that they are even right. They need to be smart enough to know they are in a no win situation. They should've put their employees on another flight or kept upping the offer until more volunteered. And of course no travelers like the standard practice of overbooking flights but last time I checked most airlines are barely hanging on financially. I understand why they play the odds and overbook. They just need to be a lot smarter about handling these situations and with their damage control after the fact. The CEO's first few statements were ill advised and added fuel to the fire.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

 

I am 99% sure the answer is yes.

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

In that type of situation, if a passenger fights back, does she/he have a valid self-defense claim I wonder?

This makes no sense. If the answer is yes, which it is, and the airline ordered you to get off the plane, why would anyone have to put their hands on you? If you don't get up and leave on your own and they have the right to remove you....I don't understand how it comes to the type of physical removal we saw in this incident. Are you saying you would disobey their lawful order to get off their plane?

Don't get me wrong, I think United handled this extremely poorly on many fronts. But before we crucify them I think we should consider exactly what happened prior to the video snippets we've seen. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that they asked for volunteers, upped the offer for volunteers before they informed people somebody would be removed. And then I assume they asked this passenger to get off and then told him he would be removed forcibly, before they actually laid hands on him. United will lose in the court of public opinion but I don't see a scenario where the passenger was not in the wrong and being unnecessarily belligerent. Of course nobody wants to get off the plane. Everyone's time is important. But I'm guessing he had every opportunity in the world to prevent the melee we saw. I mean really, especially nowadays, who is going ignore a direct order from airline officials to get off a plane?

 

 

I already used a black teen/cop analogy in regards to "journalists" digging up this doctor's past, but I see the scenario very similarly from a few different angles.

 

 

Everything you said is pretty much spot on, and the man was technically and, per policy, legally in the wrong for refusing. But, and it's a really big but. The two parties involved are a single individual who needs to work his profession and be reliable for his time, vs a massive corporation worth billions. So it is an extremely important caveat that United holds all of the power in the scenario, and in the words of Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility. Not only that, but while they were legally in the clear, United caused this mess by acting so nonsensically when they could have let all of the passengers stay on the flight AND let their airline save thousands of dollars at the same time by putting the crew members on a different flight instead of offering passengers $800 each with hotel fare.

 

 

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, the police analogy would be the scenario we've seen in many shootings of unarmed black boys where they technically broke a law, and they would have been fine if they just cooperated or whatever, but the police have all the power, have the greater responsibility, and fail to de-escalate.

I pretty much agree with you. I do have a bit of a problem with people throwing too much of a fit about the journalists looking into the guy's past though. It seems to me a lot of this guy's basis for getting so belligerent was that he was a doctor and therefore supposedly more important than other passengers. Basically he Is telling every other passenger on that flight that he is more important than them. I think at that point it becomes somewhat relevant as to exactly what kind of doctor he is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if United started the process of looking into his past to try to discredit him. Another failed damage control move that would've been a little more successful if they had discovered more damning info.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

 

 

Somehow, that just doesn't surprise me one bit

 

 

Interestingly, I am WAY more calm and rational than I used to be...even 2 years ago.

 

[knapplc]

Lots of victim blaming in here. Regardless of how this guy reacted, it never should have gotten to this point. United bear the sole responsibility for creating and escalating this when they had many other options to choose from before ever laying hands on their customer. If they had explored those options we wouldn't be having this discussion. They took the easy way out by putting their problem into the lap of a paying customer. Their fault, full stop.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

Can't airlines remove/bump passengers from any flight based on airlines contract of carriage? (I am not advocating the manner in which the man was removed)

I am 99% sure the answer is yes.

 

On a side note: If that had happened to me, I'd be in jail right now because I would have been swinging on the first a-hole who tried to put his hands on me.

 

In that type of situation, if a passenger fights back, does she/he have a valid self-defense claim I wonder?

This makes no sense. If the answer is yes, which it is, and the airline ordered you to get off the plane, why would anyone have to put their hands on you? If you don't get up and leave on your own and they have the right to remove you....I don't understand how it comes to the type of physical removal we saw in this incident. Are you saying you would disobey their lawful order to get off their plane?

Don't get me wrong, I think United handled this extremely poorly on many fronts. But before we crucify them I think we should consider exactly what happened prior to the video snippets we've seen. I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that they asked for volunteers, upped the offer for volunteers before they informed people somebody would be removed. And then I assume they asked this passenger to get off and then told him he would be removed forcibly, before they actually laid hands on him. United will lose in the court of public opinion but I don't see a scenario where the passenger was not in the wrong and being unnecessarily belligerent. Of course nobody wants to get off the plane. Everyone's time is important. But I'm guessing he had every opportunity in the world to prevent the melee we saw. I mean really, especially nowadays, who is going ignore a direct order from airline officials to get off a plane?

I was just curious and asking a mostly hypothetical question.

 

As to how it escalates into a physical confrontation? Pretty easily apparently. If I was in that situation, I have no idea how I'd react. I'd like to think I'd handle it with quiet dignity and grace, but I could also see myself losing my cool, especially if someone puts their hands on me.

That's kind of my point. Most people would be unhappy, some may lose their lose their cool but almost all would leave without anyone having to touch them. Given how this situation obviously escalated, I'm thinking this guy was a very rare case that got extremely belligerent and basically caused the physical confrontation we saw in the videos.

 

I'm not saying United couldn't have handled it better or that they are even right. They need to be smart enough to know they are in a no win situation. They should've put their employees on another flight or kept upping the offer until more volunteered. And of course no travelers like the standard practice of overbooking flights but last time I checked most airlines are barely hanging on financially. I understand why they play the odds and overbook. They just need to be a lot smarter about handling these situations and with their damage control after the fact. The CEO's first few statements were ill advised and added fuel to the fire.

 

For the record, the flight was not overbooked. They had enough seats for passengers that had paid for tickets. What happened was the airline screwed up and needed to get a flight crew on board to be taken to another flight in Louisville.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-overbooked-flight/

 

The "random" selections aren't random, they always go for the lowest paid ticket first. Also, while what United did was really, really bad, it was the cops that took it from 0-60.

 

Here's a decent write up on the incident:

Fault here lies with:

• United for not having as many seats as they sold, although it wasn’t because they sold more seats than the plane held, it was because their operation became a mess and they needed to salvage that to inconvenience the fewest passengers overall. It wasn’t “to maximize their profits” although they certainly wanted to limit their losses by limiting passenger inconvenience.

   

• The passenger who should have gotten off the plane when ordered to do so. It sucked for him and wasn’t his fault, but refusing airline and police instructions unless designed to provoke a violent response for media attention to promote a civil rights cause is a bad idea.

   

• The Chicago Aviation Police shouldn’t have responded with the force they did. They’re the most to blame. If they hadn’t used as much force this whole thing would never even have been a story.

United’s statements backing their employee, refusing to name the victim, or acknowledge that the police really did hurt him are deplorable.

But the situation itself lands mostly at the feet of the police, who appear to recognize this based on actions thus far.

 

So what do we do to prevent this in the future? The truth is there’s not very much. Running an airline is hard. Weather and mechanical problems and back luck and IT problems cancel and delay flights, so they work hard to recover.

 

Maybe the maximum denied board compensation should be even higher, though that’s not clearly an issue. When the Department of Transportation began regulating denied boarding in the 1970s, there were about 150,000 involuntary denied boardings in the U.S. per year — and now with many more passengers the number there are in the 40,000s. As flights have gotten more full, the percentage of passengers denied boarding has gone down.

 

The real solution here is to change the culture of law enforcement in aviation. As soon as there’s even a misunderstanding between passengers and crew, that can trigger law enforcement. The assumption is that the passenger is always wrong, the airline backs its crew, and there’s tremendous risk to the public. Not every customer service situation is a crime.

 

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/real-reason-man-dragged-off-united-flight-stop-happening/

 

[Saunders]

Oh, and this one's gold jerry, gold.

 

[ZRod]

Oh great! It's the cop's fault again...

[knapplc]

United's CEO doing damage control.

 

[JJ Husker]

Lots of victim blaming in here. Regardless of how this guy reacted, it never should have gotten to this point. United bear the sole responsibility for creating and escalating this when they had many other options to choose from before ever laying hands on their customer. If they had explored those options we wouldn't be having this discussion. They took the easy way out by putting their problem into the lap of a paying customer. Their fault, full stop.

You're absolutely right. United had many other options that should've and could've prevented this. It should never have gotten to the point of needing to involuntarily remove a passenger. But once it did go that far, it seems highly likely that the passenger and aviation cops contributed more than their fair share to the physical confrontation that ensued. I don't think "fault" is always fully attributable to the very first thing that could've prevented any problem. That provides an undeserving excuse for all contributing actions.

[knapplc]

 

Lots of victim blaming in here. Regardless of how this guy reacted, it never should have gotten to this point. United bear the sole responsibility for creating and escalating this when they had many other options to choose from before ever laying hands on their customer. If they had explored those options we wouldn't be having this discussion. They took the easy way out by putting their problem into the lap of a paying customer. Their fault, full stop.

You're absolutely right. United had many other options that should've and could've prevented this. It should never have gotten to the point of needing to involuntarily remove a passenger. But once it did go that far, it seems highly likely that the passenger and aviation cops contributed more than their fair share to the physical confrontation that ensued. I don't think "fault" is always fully attributable to the very first thing that could've prevented any problem. That provides an undeserving excuse for all contributing actions.

 

I agree with you mostly. I see it in three stages:

 

1) United should have found alternate means for their crew. In this stage, 100% of the blame lies with them.

 

2) Once they made the mistake and we progress to this stage, the passenger was refusing a lawful order and bears some of the blame. However, he doesn't get all the blame in this stage because even now, United could have called it all off and found alternate travel plans for their crew. I'd say in this stage, blame goes 70/30 to United. It's not 50/50 because, although the guy is not complying, he still shouldn't be asked to.

 

3) Now we're at the police involvement stage. Or security. I'm still not 100% sure who these guys were. They were called in, just doing their job, just like the real cops would be if I was belligerent and refused to leave a restaurant or bar. At that point, you resist arrest and bad stuff can happen to you. I give the cops 5% of the blame here, and that's probably too high. Lots of people will blame them much more because they're the ones on video busting the guy's face, but until some proof comes out that the uniform INTENTIONALLY slammed the guy's face, I'm giving them mostly a pass. When it gets to that point, you can't blame the cop. Fault here lies 5% with the cop, 65% with United, 30% with the guy (the last two for the same reasons as #2).