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

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

step back wrote:

That right there was a $600 decision that cost them $830 million.

No, it was a $600 decision that cost their shareholders $830 million temporarily.

In the mean time, it would have set a precedent for a higher price for vouchers to anybody being bumped. They bumped 42,500 passengers last year. If they paid them all an extra $600, it would be $25 million extra that they pay each year. The stock will rebound soon enough when everybody forgets about this and the airline won't be paying out extra money.

Good math and reasoning, but remember the airline isn't giving out $25million cash. They give vouchers for future flights. So what they actually give away is whatever it costs them for someone to sit in a future unused seat (instead of buying that seat). Whatever that value is, it is less than the retail cost of the ticket.

Checker wrote:

I have "boarded" in quotes because apparently the airlines believe you are not "boarded" until the doors are closed.

I'm not sure that is true. "Boarding" is not a defined term in United's Contract of Carriage.

Which is exactly why I said "apparently the airlines believe you are not `boarded` until the doors are closed."[/quote]

flight club - fight club wrote:

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

No, it was a $600 decision that cost their shareholders $830 million temporarily.

In the mean time, it would have set a precedent for a higher price for vouchers to anybody being bumped. They bumped 42,500 passengers last year. If they paid them all an extra $600, it would be $25 million extra that they pay each year. The stock will rebound soon enough when everybody forgets about this and the airline won't be paying out extra money.

Good math and reasoning, but remember the airline isn't giving out $25million cash. They give vouchers for future flights. So what they actually give away is whatever it costs them for someone to sit in a future unused seat (instead of buying that seat). Whatever that value is, it is less than the retail cost of the ticket.

Now they're only up 6 percent from what they were on March 21st, 21 days ago. Think they'll survive?

flight club - fight club wrote:

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

No, it was a $600 decision that cost their shareholders $830 million temporarily.

In the mean time, it would have set a precedent for a higher price for vouchers to anybody being bumped. They bumped 42,500 passengers last year. If they paid them all an extra $600, it would be $25 million extra that they pay each year. The stock will rebound soon enough when everybody forgets about this and the airline won't be paying out extra money.

Good math and reasoning, but remember the airline isn't giving out $25million cash. They give vouchers for future flights. So what they actually give away is whatever it costs them for someone to sit in a future unused seat (instead of buying that seat). Whatever that value is, it is less than the retail cost of the ticket.

No, it's not good reasoning. It wouldn't have set a precedent for $600 more. Airlines offer different amounts for compensation all the time. Each overbooked flight is a different event. I've seen comments where others have received $2500 from United in the past for compensation, and that obviously didn't set a precedent either. Airlines usually up the money/vouchers like an auction until there are volunteers. They should have done the same here. I don't know why they decided to stop at $800 or $1000 (conflicting stories), and chose to pick "randomly" (probably from the lowest priced tickets) people who didn't want to volunteer. $600 more (or not even that much more) would have avoided this incident because they would have had volunteers who decided that it was sufficient compensation.

The airline f*cked up by letting the people board before understanding the headcount. Everything was doomed to go downhill at that point. That is a mistake made by companies, and many mistakes cost you money. The correct thing to do would have been to keep increasing the incentive until you do have 4 volunteers to give up their seats. Chump change in the grand scheme of things that can be chalked up to a learning experience.

Had the individuals not already boarded the plane, they can bump people and it isn't an issue.

sdfas wrote:

Now they're only up 6 percent from what they were on March 21st, 21 days ago. Think they'll survive?

Nice try. How about how are they doing since March 3rd? What? Still down?

If you think United is happy with their stock going down and all of the negative attention from this you are wrong. An idiot, and wrong. United was having a nice upward trend since a low in July 2016; was doing well (historic highs) but then started a downward trend about mid February 2017 (do you know why?), hitting a 4 month low on March 21. They were just starting to recover some of that loss which was absolutely seen as positive and good news. Nobody at United is happy about what is happening today. You can try to spin it like a fool, but it's not a feel good story for United.

daily mail wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Why are police inserting themselves into a civil matter between a company and its customer? Why do corporations get to have state enforced violence on their side?

Not defending this, but it looks like the airline can revoke your right to be on the plane, despite you buying a ticket and being "boarded". I have "boarded" in quotes because apparently the airlines believe you are not "boarded" until the doors are closed. Once the airline evokes your contract to be on the plane, you become a trespasser and can be removed by the police.

I'm very doubtful of this as a legal theory.

steve dildarian wrote:

The airline f*cked up by letting the people board before understanding the headcount. Everything was doomed to go downhill at that point. That is a mistake made by companies, and many mistakes cost you money. The correct thing to do would have been to keep increasing the incentive until you do have 4 volunteers to give up their seats. Chump change in the grand scheme of things that can be chalked up to a learning experience.

Had the individuals not already boarded the plane, they can bump people and it isn't an issue.

I read somewhere that there was a federally mandated cap on the compensation for allowing yourself to be bumped, so this might have ended in stalemate regardless.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I read somewhere that there was a federally mandated cap on the compensation for allowing yourself to be bumped, so this might have ended in stalemate regardless.

The $1350 cap is in their Contract of Carriage, to limit their liability. It doesn't prevent them from offering whatever they like - it only limits what you can get if you sue them for being bumped to $1350 max. Interesting that they apparently didn't even offer their own self prescribed maximum. I think the guy who offered to leave for $1600 probably would have taken $1350.

pick and choose wrote:

sdfas wrote:

Now they're only up 6 percent from what they were on March 21st, 21 days ago. Think they'll survive?

Nice try. How about how are they doing since March 3rd? What? Still down?

If you think United is happy with their stock going down and all of the negative attention from this you are wrong. An idiot, and wrong. United was having a nice upward trend since a low in July 2016; was doing well (historic highs) but then started a downward trend about mid February 2017 (do you know why?), hitting a 4 month low on March 21. They were just starting to recover some of that loss which was absolutely seen as positive and good news. Nobody at United is happy about what is happening today. You can try to spin it like a fool, but it's not a feel good story for United.

No kidding that it's not a feel good story for United. And it certainly COULD be indications for a future downward trend. I'm not trying to spin anything.

People were throwing out numbers with no context. A 3 percent drop in stock price on a given day is pretty common - it's hardly worth noting.

The negative PR is worth noting. The potential future business and other ramifications are worth noting. A 3 percent drop in stock price in a down market day... not so much.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I read somewhere that there was a federally mandated cap on the compensation for allowing yourself to be bumped, so this might have ended in stalemate regardless.

The cap is the maximum the airline is *required* to payout, SFB. They can pay more if they wanted....its just, they don't want to.....because passengers are a waste of time for them

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

steve dildarian wrote:

The airline f*cked up by letting the people board before understanding the headcount. Everything was doomed to go downhill at that point. That is a mistake made by companies, and many mistakes cost you money. The correct thing to do would have been to keep increasing the incentive until you do have 4 volunteers to give up their seats. Chump change in the grand scheme of things that can be chalked up to a learning experience.

Had the individuals not already boarded the plane, they can bump people and it isn't an issue.

I read somewhere that there was a federally mandated cap on the compensation for allowing yourself to be bumped, so this might have ended in stalemate regardless.

Well that is stupid. I'm not saying that you are wrong, in fact it makes the story/United's reaction easier to understand, but that is a dumb regulation. What's the risk? Collusion amongst passengers to drive up voucher compensation? Give me a break.

Not meaning to take it out on you - thanks for the info.

contract wrote:

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I read somewhere that there was a federally mandated cap on the compensation for allowing yourself to be bumped, so this might have ended in stalemate regardless.

The $1350 cap is in their Contract of Carriage, to limit their liability. It doesn't prevent them from offering whatever they like - it only limits what you can get if you sue them for being bumped to $1350 max. Interesting that they apparently didn't even offer their own self prescribed maximum. I think the guy who offered to leave for $1600 probably would have taken $1350.

Got it - so yeah they should have just ponied up the cash and I never would have heard this story.

He had to meet you the next morning?

I like how they randomly selected the gay Asian. What's the probability of that happening on a domestic flight in the US?

dumbcops wrote:

exthrower wrote:

What he really meant was he had to meet his gay lover the next morning.

He had to meet you the next morning?

exthrower knows all about tossing loads with the 'boys'

Spankbaby wrote:

Because corporation own you

The airlines and the government have used 9/11 as an excuse to do anything they damn well please.

National security is at stake, yada, yada, yada.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I'm very doubtful of this as a legal theory.

But that will most likely be the airline's position. When you buy a ticket for a flight, the airline agrees to carry you, but you cannot force them to do so. The ticket is your contract for carriage, but the airline can breach that contract and throw you off the plane under certain conditions. Bad weather or lack of airline personnel being some of them. If, at that point, you refuse to leave, you become a trespasser.

Of course, since the airline beached the contract, you then have grounds for a civil lawsuit. But although you can sue, you are not likely to win damages over the cost of your ticket.

As far as the "boarding" issue is concerned, there is no clear definition in the federal law of what exactly constitutes a boarding. The ordinary meaning would be that you are boarded as soon as you enter the plane. But the airline will argue that it is a well established airline practice that boarding is defined by the closing of the door. It would be interesting to know how he courts would resolve that, but I suspect this will never go to trial.

sdfas wrote:

The negative PR is worth noting. The potential future business and other ramifications are worth noting. A 3 percent drop in stock price in a down market day... not so much.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The problem is, everyone who flies has most likley had a bad experience (or many bad experiences), and the customer service just keeps going down and down. You get less and less for your ticket price and get often also get treated with indifference or rudely. Often flying seems like an excuse to be treated like cattle by employees who just don't care. So it's easy for all the disgruntled flyers to relate to this and also easy for people to see what happened and know that it could have easily been them randomly chosen to leave a flight - and why? For employees over paying customers.

I would never fly on United after this, certainly not for business where I am on a tight schedule, but also,who wants to lose a vacation day if United just decides they need your seat for an employee and boots you off. I'd actually like to see United tank and then other airlines take note and stop double booking.