Dragging incident aside, why is it legal for an airline to force someone out of the seat they paid for?

It is standard practice for airlines to intentionally overbook. They assume that some people may be late, cancel, or not be there for whatever reason. Fuel is extremely expensive and they would rather have too many people rather than too few. When too many people show up they typically offer incentives to whoever volunteers to wait for the next flight.

I don't necessarily agree with it but that is how it was always explained to me.

You'd need to read the small print on the T&Cs you agreed to when you bought the ticket. But typically the airline doesn't commit to carrying you on any particular flight.

There is no constitutional "right to fly". When you purchase a ticket with an airline, you agree to the terms and conditions. This includes the fine print that they may bump you from the flight at any time (prior to takeoff, I assume) for any reason. Commons reasons include overbooking, or if you are judged to be causing an unsafe environment (usually at the captain's discretion, because they have ultimate responsibility for delivering the plane safely to its destination).

If an airline removes you from the flight when you are not causing a disturbance, federal law requires them to either get you to your destination within an hour of your originally scheduled flight. If this cannot be done, they must provide you with a reimbursement of your original ticket, plus an additional amount, which varies depending on the duration of the flight (and delay). Usually this is done by giving a voucher, but passengers are legally entitled to receive a check instead.

Personally, I don't like it, but I realize that the airline has absolute authority over their vehicle. It's nice of the government to at least require them to reimburse you, IMO.

It is legal because it is legal. If you want Congress to make it illegal then you had better consider the consequences. The first few I can think of include much higher ticket prices and never being able to refund a ticket.

Out of 10,000 passengers fewer than 1 is bumped (0.62 per 10,000) which is the lowest rate since the mid90s.

http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2017/04/10/airline-bumping-what-are-your-rights/?ecmp=socialflow_ajclife

I have probably 500K in total miles flown in my life (almost 400K with United) and cannot remember a situation when volunteers could not be found. In fact, more often than not a flight is posted as overbooked and I volunteer and do not get bumped.

Last year United bumper fewer than 4000 passengers involuntarily out of 86 MILLION. None refused to get off the plane---likely because the plane was not boarded until the situation was resolved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/united-airlines-incident-rules-airlines-bumping-passengers-overselling/

Also this flight was not really overbooked in the traditional way, United needed to get 4 crewmembers to Louisville. They were flying "dead head".

agree wrote:

they may bump you from the flight at any time (prior to takeoff, I assume)

you made it sound like a good thing.

what a positive thinker you are!

exthrower wrote:

The passenger got screwed but he acted like a 3 year old....It was a battle he couldn't win so why make a scene? Act like an adult and raise a stink with the airlines later...

I would assume that he, like the majority of fliers, did not read the terms and conditions and realize that he has no legal defense. What I find sort of funny is that people on the flight made a big scene about "he's a doctor, he has to get home to see patients!", but none of them were willing to give up their seat so he could stay on. If he went to the counter and explained his situation I'm sure they would have given him a nice voucher deal. In fact, I wonder if he lost out on that by being removed from the flight for causing a disturbance (instead of leaving voluntarily)

lop wrote:

It is standard practice for airlines to intentionally overbook. They assume that some people may be late, cancel, or not be there for whatever reason. Fuel is extremely expensive and they would rather have too many people rather than too few. When too many people show up they typically offer incentives to whoever volunteers to wait for the next flight.

I don't necessarily agree with it but that is how it was always explained to me.

Except for the fact that airlines don't seat people on a plane and then force them off because someone forgot to account to the four employees who "had" to get on the plane.

The solution for this management counting botch was simple. Offer the passengers enough money to get off, and offer them a 300 mile van ride to their destination. That way people who need to get home can arrive on time but maybe a little tired, and the employees can be well "rested" arriving at their hotels maybe some three hours before the passengers asked to give up their seats.

Except for the fact... wrote:

Except for the fact that airlines don't seat people on a plane and then force them off because someone forgot to account to the four employees who "had" to get on the plane.

This. The policy says they can prevent you from boarding. This guy was already boarded.

Except for the fact... wrote:

The solution for this management counting botch was simple. Offer the passengers enough money to get off,

Right. This is the fair way to do it. The CEO was still calling the guy a "volunteer". If you offer enough, you'll get real volunteers.

Most of us can understand situations when you really need to be on a flight. For instance, to not miss: a funeral, a really important race, or some work , business, medical, or family situations. With real volunteers, those that really need the flight stay on it.

Because corporation own you

exthrower wrote:

The passenger got screwed but he acted like a 3 year old....It was a battle he couldn't win so why make a scene? Act like an adult and raise a stink with the airlines later...

Why make a scene?

He'll get a nice settlement now.

From a strictly financial point, the passenger did very well and the airline will really pay for this, through bad publicity alone plus any settlement costs.

The guy who was yanked off, was granted a bloody nose, and had to take out on a stretcher was a 69 year old doctor who had to be at a hospital the next morning.

A BIGLY EPIC FAILURE by the airline and the "police" thugs who got off dragging the doctor off the plane.

These were also my thoughts. Also, is he actually a doctor at all? If so, what necessarily gives that profession authority over anyone else's? If it was so important for him to be there the next day, why fly the day before? I'm not a super hero doctor or anything, but I always plan for potential flight delays, weather cancellations, etc. when traveling. I am not saying I 100% agree with how things were handled, but think it was blown out of proportion.

Yanked Off wrote:

A BIGLY EPIC FAILURE by the airline and the "police" thugs who got off dragging the doctor off the plane.

They asked him to leave and he didn't. How else were they going to remove him?

oxkxk wrote:

They asked him to leave and he didn't. How else were they going to remove him?

The question is, why did they decide they should remove him? The people in charge in that situation just kept making poor choices. Fundamentally, they just did not give a rats azz about the costumer. They had four fellow employees who wanted a seat and they were going to accommodate those employees no matter what. The people who mattered the least to them? The people who paid the least for their seats - quick computer check and the 4 passengers who paid the least were told they had to go. How's that for customer service?

Just because they have the ability to pretty much kick off whoever they want, doesn't mean they should. Had they simply paid the guy $1600 who offered to leave for $1600, well, compared to the $830 million it's lost on market cap today - was the decision to forcibly remove a paying customer a good one? i think that $1600 ($600 more than they were willing to pay) would have been the best money United ever spent. That right there was a $600 decision that cost them $830 million.

Yanked Off wrote:

The guy who was yanked off, was granted a bloody nose, and had to take out on a stretcher was a 69 year old doctor who had to be at a hospital the next morning.

A BIGLY EPIC FAILURE by the airline and the "police" thugs who got off dragging the doctor off the plane.

Do we know for sure that he was a doctor? He could of course been making that all up you know.

A bit skeptical... wrote:

Yanked Off wrote:

The guy who was yanked off, was granted a bloody nose, and had to take out on a stretcher was a 69 year old doctor who had to be at a hospital the next morning.

A BIGLY EPIC FAILURE by the airline and the "police" thugs who got off dragging the doctor off the plane.

Do we know for sure that he was a doctor? He could of course been making that all up you know.

Yes, he is a doctor, his wife is a doctor and his children are doctors.

Not that it mattered, he had a cheap seat and United has employees who care about employees, not costumers.

oxkxk wrote:

Yanked Off wrote:

A BIGLY EPIC FAILURE by the airline and the "police" thugs who got off dragging the doctor off the plane.

They asked him to leave and he didn't. How else were they going to remove him?

You DO NOT REMOVE SOMEONE AFTER BEING ALLOWED ON. You don't let them board is how it works.