Discussion » Questions » Travel » Should airlines be able to forcibly remove a passenger because they overbooked or need seat for their crew?
my2cents

Should airlines be able to forcibly remove a passenger because they overbooked or need seat for their crew?

A man was forcefully removed,  bloodied and knocked out during the process. Flight full and they needed to fly their own crew somewhere. Offered $800 to deboard...No takers. So airline randomly chose 4 passengers to leave. This guy refused said he was a Dr and had to see patients the next morning.
Why is this legal?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/10/watch-screaming-passenger-get-dragged-off-plane-after-airline-overbooked-flight/

Posted - April 11, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 19937
    What they did to this guy was completely unacceptable.  If I were him, I would sue the pants off United and he has more than enough proof of what they did to him.  It was horrendous to watch on TV.  I can only imagine what it must have been like on that plane.  Real Gestapo tactics.  I wouldn't fly United if they gave me a free ticket.
      April 11, 2017 5:23 AM MDT
    3

  • 6124
    No.  As far as I'm concerned, overbooking or scheduling issues, falls entirely on the airline's shoulders.  They screwed up.  This may be common practice in the airline industry but it needs to end.  No airline should be allowed to indiscriminately choose a person who has paid for passage, and physically remove them from their seat.  I'm with SpunkySenior.  I think the guy should sue and I'm sure he will.   The airline should have kept sweetening the deal until someone finally volunteered OR, even better, they should just do a better job of planning for these contingencies.  
      April 11, 2017 6:09 AM MDT
    2

  • Sorry but that's not right... They do have the right... It's in the contract which is the ticket you purchase... Having said that, what they dud was wrong on so many levels... Every one involved well be clearing the snow from wins in Nome next week... It's a total Pr disaster and could have been avoided
      April 11, 2017 6:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 6124
    Oh, I know it's in their contract.  I am saying it needs to be changed.  Yes, it's a total PR disaster and could have been easily avoided if they had made some better management decisions. Why should someone who books a seat be penalized because an airline chooses to overbook a flight?  I understand they need to make money but, is turning a few more $$ of profit  (leaving a couple of seats open on every flight) worth the cost of possibly losing their business altogether?  All they have to do is look at how many airlines have folded over the years due to mismanagement.  There have been other incidents where passengers and crews clashed & United didn't handle them satisfactorily.  They have filed for bankruptcy in the past.  They've been fined heavily for leaving passengers stranded on planes. A couple of years ago, they had issues with all their flights being grounded.  How many more incidents will they be able to withstand before they file for bankruptcy and are unable to reorganize?  All I'm saying is that they need to review their practices and adjust them if they want to survive.  This screw the passenger attitude they have just isn't working for them. 
      April 11, 2017 6:46 AM MDT
    3

  • Harry... I agree totally with everything you just said... And more!
    To me there are two aspects to this... What is legally right abs what is ethically right.
    They failed on ethics, that is not in dispute in most people's minds... If it goes to court, the pax is in the wrong for failure to obey a lawful order.
    I'm in the industry... Ticket prices are in a race to the bottom and unfortunately this is one of the results.
    Please don't think I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not.
     :) This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 11, 2017 7:25 AM MDT
      April 11, 2017 7:09 AM MDT
    1

  • 6124
    I feel sorry for you that you have to deal with kind of this stuff.  Over the past few years, even though the price of fuel went down, I found that tickets prices in the U.S. actually increased.  Now with the price of fuel rising, I wonder where they will be even during the months when the costs are usually reduced.  

    Not sure if they would prevail in court.  Is it actually considered a "lawful" order when it is security personnel?  Does the policy include the right to use excessive physical force if needed?  I understand when someone is posing a threat to the other passengers but this man simply refused to give up a seat that was paid for. I am very interested in what the outcome will be.  


      April 11, 2017 7:31 AM MDT
    1

  • 34284
    I agree. They should not be allowed to overbook....(for customers or their employees) I also think to prevent the practice....If you buy a ticket and don't show, you still have to pay for it. 
      April 12, 2017 5:25 PM MDT
    0

  • 44619
    I guess United will no longer have an overbooking problem. Better sell your shares of stock now if you have any.
      April 11, 2017 6:14 AM MDT
    6

  • 5614
    Let them go ahead and have it in the contract they can change the terms of your flight at any time but judges everywhere should allow passengers to successfully sue for the inconvenience. That will shortly end the practice of overbooking. This post was edited by O-uknow at April 11, 2017 8:56 AM MDT
      April 11, 2017 6:57 AM MDT
    1

  • Overbooking defeats the whole purpose of buying a ticket in the first place   Same as when you make reservations and find out the type of car or room is unavailable.
    With all the numerous SILLY consumer protection laws on the books,  it's baffling that  we can't have sensible ones like not allowing this kind of nonsense.


    It's even more salt in the wound that it was for UA employees to have the seats. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 12, 2017 5:57 PM MDT
      April 11, 2017 8:57 AM MDT
    2

  • Dear My2¢,

    I think this kind of behavior is more common than we generally even realize. Not so extreme as this, so we don't always recognize it...but in many ways, we have become accustomed to it.

    * * *
    And to answer your Q, no; this kind of force should require police officers with legal authorization.
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 11, 2017 6:49 PM MDT
      April 11, 2017 9:15 AM MDT
    1

  • 7939
    From what I read, it wasn't so much of an overbooking problem as it was something else came up and they had to get employees to the next location so they could work outgoing flights. Some of the passengers have said that the airline telling them that they needed to transport employees is why nobody volunteered- that made them mad, but I don't think the people understood why employees needed to be moved as a priority. 

    There are a million things about this case that are bothering me, though. I may well start my own question series on those, so I can stick to just yours here, but yes, the airline has to be able to forcibly remove people. It stinks, but there's no way around that. I don't agree with what happened here, but that man refusing to get off the plane not only prevented all those people from going to their destinations in a timely manner, but also may have stopped the flight crew from getting to their next trip in a timely manner, thus delaying all kinds of people and flights. The scope of delays caused by one person refusing to get off a plane could have easily impacted thousands. Those crew members had to be on other flights- the ones working that flight and the ones who needed transport to their next jobs. Flight schedules are tough... there's coordination of airspace, landing, gates, etc. So, we're talking the benefit of one person versus thousands under normal circumstances.

    I'm not going to excuse the behavior- like I said, what happened here was wrong, but what else could they have done? Realistically, what were the airline's other options? No volunteers and thousands of people being impacted by one person refusing to deplane. It's a tough situation.
      April 11, 2017 9:18 AM MDT
    1

  • They could have eaten the burnt steak they cooked and found another way to fly their employees.  Welching in an agreement is never acceptable. 
    The fact that it was to transport employees makes them so much more in the wrong.  Not less.   The priority should be the paying customers who they made a deal with.
      April 11, 2017 9:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 17599
    Yes, they are and should be able to do what they did.  I think airport security should have called in the cops to actually arrest the passenger rather than drag him off the plane.  That is all on the shoulder of the Chicago airport.  Chicago.............I'm shocked.  United asked the passenger to leave the plane and he would not.  They called security to remove him.  All of that is allowed.  Since the reason was to shuffle personnel and not overbooking, United will most likely face a breach of contract action.  The fact that the passenger was a doctor makes no difference.

    My personal opinion.
      April 11, 2017 1:20 PM MDT
    1

  • Consumers deserve nothing.   Tickets and reservations are meaningless.   
      April 11, 2017 1:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 17599
    Read.  Since the reason was to shuffle personnel and not overbooking, United will most likely face a breach of contract action.  
      April 11, 2017 6:34 PM MDT
    1

  • Why should they be able to do that in the first place though?  Why should he been arrested for UA's failure?
      April 11, 2017 6:35 PM MDT
    0

  • 17599
    You need to educate yourself about overbooking and the allowance made for airlines getting their crews where they need them.  Overbooking is allowed.  This is not a case of overbooking.  In the present case United needed to get a crew from Chicago to wherever this flight was going.  In my opinion, they broke their contract with the customer but they did nothing illegal.  The customer  may and probably will sue United.  HOWEVER, the airline asked that passenger to leave the plane and he refused.  They followed protocol by calling the airport security.  I believe the security agents used too much force to remove the passenger.  That is not United.......that is OHare airport.  Know that if you are requested to get off of a plane by the crew, do it.  They have the right to remove you.  The truth is the passenger could have been a security risk and this might be determined how to get him off of a plane.  The other passengers would not know.  The bottom line is that UA did nothing illegal but the airport security may have.  This was only a big deal because the media decided to make it a big deal.
      April 11, 2017 6:44 PM MDT
    1

  • I don't need to be educated.  I know how it works.  It's wrong and BS to the highest order.  Overbooking is just unethical BS for one.  Out of all the silly consumer protection laws it's baffling and disgusting that it's not illegal.

    He's a security risk?   LMAO are you really so sold on the Bush Era scare tactic nonsense you actually believe this may have been some top secret covert plane to remove a flight risk?


    Legal and illegal is not a basis for what is right/ just and wrong/unjust.    There is no reason paying customers should have to suffer and be screwed with because some major business like UA can't get it's chit together.   It's a big deal because enough is enough with these big airlines and corporations in general having all the odds in their favour and screw the peon peasants.  The airline could have just eaten the chit sandwich they made as they should have.


    " Oh the crew needed to get to the place the flight was going."  BOO-HOO  So did the people who payed good god damn money to UA to fly to where they needed to go.   Obviously UA doesn't give a chit about their customers.   As if there has ever been any doubt with any of these businesses.   Just cattle.
      April 11, 2017 6:58 PM MDT
    1

  • 17599
    Then stay ignorant.  You don't know what you are talking about at all and have no desire to gain knowledge..........just to run your mouth, or in this case, your fingers. 
      April 12, 2017 1:56 PM MDT
    0