Being somewhat pedantic here but what you’re spelling out here is actually not covered by CoC. CoC spells out the passenger rights in the event of delayed/cancelled for denied boarding. It does not have to spell out all the possible reasons why a delay/cancel or denied boarding situation could arise. Overselling is not illegal and every airline does it.
It basically boils down to this…for what are called “Non Revenue” passengers, there are two types: Space Available and Positive Space.
Space A is for employees NOT traveling on company business. This is the typical employee/buddy pass situation where they are required to fly stand by and can be bumped for any reason at any time. You’re taking your chances when flying Space A. These are always targeted first for bumping.
Positive Space breaks down into “confirmed seat” and “Must Ride”. Confirmed seat means you are treated just like any other revenue paying passenger. You are traveling on company business but you are subject to all the same rules and conditions as all the other passengers. You can be bumped if the situation calls for it.
“Must Rides” are those who for whatever reason must be on that flight. Most of the time is is reserved for positioning crew members and other personnel needing to be somewhere for operational reasons. However, it can also designate special circumstances like someone transporting donor organs. These are usually unplanned events so they can not always be anticipated in advance. Must Rides cannot be bumped except on higher authority.
Again, every airline decides these policies for themselves and their operational priorities - United, Delta, American all have similar policies with minor differences - but every airline has them…no exception. It’s NOT unique to United nor does the prioritization of who gets bumped a violation of CoC.
Should it be? No idea - not here to argue that point. Just pointing out facts that may be relevant to this situation and that might have lead up to the decision to bump this particular fellow from his seat.
What happened afterwards and United’s hamfisted response should absolutely by scrutinized and criticized. But don’t blame the airline for following standard procedures on overselling/bumping passengers in the first place.
A thread over at Flyertalk that might help to explain:
1 - This is good example of what is known as a “logical contradiction”. You cannot “not respond” by giving a response. Logical pedantry sure is fun, though!
2 - It’s not a “straw man” because you are arguing that the airline isn’t at fault, and (sarcastic as I may be) that position is aligned with my argument and conclusion. It’s also not a strawman because it’s deliberately non sequitur: I am asserting a conclusion that cannot be reached through logic without reconciling the contradiction in your “not victim blaming” with your assertion that the “passenger bears some degree of responsibility”.
As far as I can tell, your positions are to assign blame between the passenger and the paramilitary force and to absolve the airline of all wrongdoing on the premise that this is codified, routine business practice. I don’t accept that codification, “having to do business”, or anything of the like absolves the airline of their moral and ethical responsibilities to this passenger. It’s their gig. They called the shots, all of them. The airline is culpable for its business decisions, including whatever choices resulted in them not having enough seats to accommodate the number they sold, in them not sufficiently incentivizing volunteers to balance their inadequate supply, in selecting him specifically, in disregarding his stated professional and ethical obligations, and in deploying a paramilitary force to resolve a foreseeable business dispute of their own making.
As long as we’re not discussing the business ethics of these policies, then let me just comment on the optics of the situation: There is no reason to let an individual get their body inside the plane, and sit their butt in the seat, if your commercial imperitive means that seat should be given to a crew member instead. All those cell phone videos would have had nothing to show, if the guy could have had his melt-down out in the gate and not on the plane. No amount of fine print is going to absolve the company from that.
Fine. Not a straw man but reductio ad absurdum instead.
Not at all. Never in any of my comments have I advocated for absolving United of culpability for their participation in the event. What happened was horrific and uncalled for - but as far as I can tell, no United employee was directly involved in beating and submitting the passenger.
United bears responsibility for not handling the IDB situation early at the gate area and before everyone boarded the plane which then necessitated the forced removal of the passenger. This was not done well and their tone deaf response is equally insulting.
However, I still maintain the passenger bears partial responsibility for the situation escalating to the point where police were called to remove him. Once he refused to exit the plane he was essentially non-compliant with crew member instructions and this precipitated the events that followed.
Is he responsible for his beating and injuries? Absolutely not - nor have I ever claimed such.
Yeah, I’m struggling with that answer, frankly. Best answer I’ve got so far is:
Stand up and make it clear I’m giving up my seat and to leave that person alone.
Demand the cops release the person they violated
Demand immediate medical help for the person they violated
Leave the aircraft and being the loud and persistent person demanding badge numbers and telephone calls and whatever whatever–I’m not a pro here, but you get the idea.
I definitely realize how idealistic (or unrealistic, if you please) I sound, and I understand your thought about capturing the incident and then moving forward with that info, but JFC they bloodied that gentleman and passively letting it happen three feet away strikes me as a godamn travesty.
If anything, always revert to this (spoiler’d for Godwin):
I can see how United could claim they are free to bump passengers on a flight up to the point where you leave the gate, but once you have taken your seat you have boarded the plane. If United staff turn up at that point, tough, the plane is ready to go.
Also, an operational nightmare because any checked luggage for those passengers would have to be removed from the cargo hold before the plane can push back.
But it is defined in their COC and it doesn’t seem to apply to this situation.
They do specify things outside of the COC that might also lead to bounces, but, once again
“Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.” doesn’t seem to cover “dead-heading”.
I haven’t seen one fact supporting your suppositions…
Interesting, but that is all about whether they can be bumped if they have a reserved seat. Not about whether they can take a reserved seat. I also don’t see any specific written procedure or policy being referenced.
You seem to be trying to argue from authority rather than from fact.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m not willing to nor can I defend or refute the CoC or airline policies. Just stating pertinent information based on my understanding of the facts as I’ve been in similar IDB situations in the past (minus the beating of course). You can go be legalistic with somebody else.
What I see is a lot of posters wanting to argue with me over this case or claiming that I am taking a position defending United or the police for their actions - I most certainly am not. I get it - it’s an emotionally charged issue illustrating many problems with corporate indifference and police-state fascism.
What I am trying to say is don’t conflate airline policies on involuntarily denied boarding procedures and why this guy was picked to be bumped with some intentional decision on United’s part to deliberately and with malice intended beat the guy unconscious.
What we should be doing is debating the fucked up policies of the Chicago Dept of Aviation and their obviously untrained security force.
Looking forward to United and airport security settling “for an undisclosed sum”. The guy probably has his pick of fine US law professionals banging at his door right now.
Lesson for United should be that, whatever it might cost to source an extra crew member in some random airport, it is not worth millions in legal fees. Calling security is not an answer for botched operational procedures.
Then again, this is United. They don’t care and likely never will.
You are offering a worthless excuse for unacceptable behavior, that simple. The jackbooted thugs were called by United; they own exactly as much of the blame. Once again, United violated their own damn transportation charter (you know, that thing they are legally obliged to uphold?) to do so, point of fact, as the man obviously WAS boarded; if sitting on the plane with your luggage loaded isn’t “boarded”, then nothing is.
Was the aviation cops’ behavior OK? Definitely NOT, as their own superiors already have said, more or less directly. But that still doesn’t give United any kind of pass for instigating the incident in the 1st place.
I simply would not settle. In fact, I’d bet even money his lawyer won’t want to, as well; they have United dead-to-rights. Try imagining this playing out in front of a jury… Punitive and compensatory damages are just about guaranteed.
Edit -> God help United, if any of the patients of this doctor decide to bring suit. Ah, delicious Schadenfreude…
Considering the uproar today from people online, here, on twitter, everywhere, I’d suggest you are wrong.
Some years ago a military figure was on the Rachel Maddow Show. I can’t remember his name for the life of me, but he was her regular “conservative voice” for a while there. He said something that stuck with me:
“People love soldiers because they don’t have to be one.”
I can understand why you’d see this quote and say, “What the fuck does that got to do with this situation?” but I ask you to examine the truth of it a bit harder before you point at Twitterage as an indication there are still good people in our dying society.
