SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NPR reports
Passengers on a United Express flight from Chicago to Louisville, Ky., were horrified when a man was forcibly removed--violently wrenched from his seat and physically dragged down the aisle. [...] Videos of the scene have prompted calls to boycott United Airlines.
[...] The Chicago Department of Aviation [...] says the actions of the security officers were "not condoned by the Department" and that one individual has been placed on leave pending a review.
[...] Passengers had already boarded on Sunday evening [April 10] at O'Hare International Airport when United asked for volunteers to take another flight the next day to make room for four United staff members who needed seats.
The airline offered $400 and a free hotel, passenger Audra D. Bridges told the Louisville Courier-Journal. When no one volunteered, the offer was doubled to $800. When there were still no bites, the airline selected four passengers to leave the flight--including the man in the video and his wife.
"They told him he had been selected randomly to be taken off the flight", Bridges said.
[...] The man said he was a doctor and that he "needed to work at the hospital the next day", passenger Jayse D. Anspach said.
[...] Both Bridges and Anspach posted videos of three security officers, who appear to be wearing the uniforms of Chicago aviation police, wrenching the man out of his seat, prompting wails. His face appeared to strike an armrest. Then they dragged his limp body down the aisle.
Footage shows the man was bleeding from the mouth as they dragged him away. His glasses were askew and his shirt was riding up over his belly.
"It looked like he was knocked out, because he went limp and quiet and they dragged him out of the plane like a rag doll", Anspach wrote.
Previous: Days After United Settlement, Baggage Handler Locked in Cargo Hold on NC-to-DC Flight
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:13PM (8 children)
I'm a lot more with the victim who was thrown off of a flight that he paid for, than I am with the airline. But, there ARE two sides to this.
Federal law specifies, very clearly, that the pilot of an aircraft (like the captain or master of a ship) is the ultimate authority. Defying his orders is cause for summary execution. Yes, that's a fact - you can be shot for disobeying orders on a ship or an aircraft. The captain is the law, and there is no real appeal if the shit hits the fan.
On the other hand, everything I've heard and read says that United has turned into a real shit airline. If they can't arrange to get their employees where they need to be, to cover all their flights, that is United's problem, not the paying passenger's problems. Maybe they should hire more staff, maybe they should have booked another flight for their flight crew, maybe they should try learning some real management. United knew in advance that they would need to move flight crews to cover those flights, they could have simply held onto a couple of seats, and NOT OVERBOOKED.
The doctor took a real risk when he argued with the flight crew. But, thanks to his bravery and determination, United's shit policies have been exposed - again. It's no secret, after all, that the airlines do this. People are bumped every day, often times without explanation. In most cases, it is due to mismanagement on the airline's part. They know they have x amount of seats, and they can't possibly move x+n - so don't sell the seats!! Or - if they really need to cover all bases, sell that +n on a contingency basis, like the military does.
The military can hop flights all over the world, for free - space available. I made a few Space-A flights while in service. You know in advance that you are Space-A, and the plane can be taxiing down the runway, and called back to the terminal so that you can be bumped for someone more important.
So - the airlines can sell a few discounted tickets. "Sir, we're sold out, but I can sell you a discounted Space-A ticket, and if anyone fails to board, you can have his seat." It's spelled out, up front, that you're an "extra". You got a discount, so you might be bumped, and you'll have to take the next flight instead. That way, there wouldn't be any of these scenes taking place.
But - idiots just can't be taught anything. If I actually got the attention of all the prez and VP's of all the airlines at once, and proposed such an idea, they would find some idiot reason why it couldn't work. Like, maybe one or two seats per flight weren't paying full fare, and the airline would go broke. *sigh* Idiots . . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:20PM
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/ [lawnewz.com]
United is incorrectly citing the denied boarding compensation rule in its COC, and the federal rule upon which it is based [14 CFR 250.5], to justify requiring a passenger who has already been permitted to board and taken a seat to involuntarily disembark.
But that rule, as its title and history clearly establish, applies only if an airline wishes to deny boarding to a passenger, not to remove a passenger who has already boarded an airplane.
~ John F. Banzhaf III is a professor of public interest law at the George Washington University Law School.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:50PM (6 children)
The Doctor was totally in the wrong, I'll say it. They sell tickets with many terms, all with differing pricing. You can opt for refundable tickets, meaning if your plans change you can change your travel plans and not be locked into flying on a specific time flight. This of course costs a bit more. You can almost always pay more for a ticket that can't be bumped. A Dr that has scheduled patients for the very next day after a flight should have paid the premium to assure his arrival. Probably a really great bargain at some online booking site but there was a price for that great rate that when the time came he decided he didn't have to pay because ??????.
Remember also that this wasn't a transcontinental flight, it was a fairly short commuter flight. So hold out for enough cash money to rent a car and cannonball home overnite. Might not be fun but if the guy really had to be at work the next day that would be an easy way to correct his poor decision to buy a cheap ticket.
Of course because he lives in the land of the stupid he will get a large sack of cash for being a jerk. In the land of the sane he would be told that when the police tell you to get yer ass off the plane, saying no can result in physical damage since they aren't in the habit of taking no for an answer to a direct order. Because he HAD to be removed, not optional; a plane has a maximum legal capacity and you can't allow a passenger who gets randomly selected to declare snowflake privilege lest the entire overbooking system collapse.
Overbooking is required to fill as many seats as possible to keep ticket prices down. Yes the airline computer system could be improved, but overbooking isn't merely a computer problem, it is the fact some passengers will cancel, other connecting flights fail, etc. The fact the last couple of passengers were employees doesn't factor into it, they are non-bumpable passengers because if they aren't in the proper place at the proper time somebody else's flight doesn't take off. People need to get a frigging grip and look at the big picture.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:42PM
He did buy a ticket that "couldn't" be bumped. United was not offering cash, they were offering vouchers (read scrip). Had he been flying standby, you might actually have a point.
Or are you claiming he should have bought the triple dog-can't be bumped with the pinkie swear amendment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:42PM
Now HERE is a real conservative. Jill Stein voters calling themselves "conservatives..." madness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:55PM (1 child)
Jmorris is a boot licking authoritarian dickbag who thinks such behavior is acceptable. Screwing over paying customers because of an airline screwup is really fucked up. Police states are fucked up. But hey it doesn't matter, justice has already been served many times over through their stock taking a big hit and god knows how many people choosing to fly other airlines. Falling back on fine print and lawyer talk to say this guy should have known better is victim blaming bullshit. The airlines should plan for such occasions and/or have small emergency planes available for just such occasions. Putting the burden on the customer is BULLSHIT.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:33PM
This isn't just screwing over paying customers, this was physical violence. I had a similar incident with United long time ago on a domestic flight - back then they had smarter staff on ground.
What they did was the evacuated everyone on our boarded flight that was ready to roll under some technical issue pretense to move to another plane. As we were all scurrying along and queuing to board the replacement flight, they were picking folks out and me and the then gf were picked out. Turns out they were overbook or something and we were the unlucky bastards that had to wait for the next flight available in 4-6 hours. There were about 6 of us unlucky bastards. No vouchers or anything, not even an apology. Now we were screwed.. but at least we didn't have our face bashed in.
It was a lot of hassle for everyone and more time wasted, but its a lot smarter than forcefully dragging folks off a boarded flight.
(Score: 2) by youngatheart on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:44AM
When something goes wrong, you have to find a way to deal with it. Sometimes you can find a way to turn a problem into a solution. Other times, you try to surf the crap wave and end up swimming in it if you're lucky and drowning in it if you aren't.
Did you ever hear the story of the missing nail [wikipedia.org]? Something that seems insignificant at first turns into a catastrophe due to just the right, or maybe wrong, circumstances. This is a real life version of that story.
I don't know how far back I should examine the circumstances. No matter how far back I consider the issue, I wonder if I shouldn't go back further. Maybe this story starts at the big bang*, but ain't nobody got time for that! So, what's the minimum number of steps back to take? I don't know. I'm inclined to start with the foundation of the United States. I'm not kidding.** A few will realize the starting point is too recent, but most won't want to read even that far. United States citizens have a heavy heritage of both freedom and rights. It's wonderful in many ways but in others... We have a right to expect special treatment regardless of circumstance. Many societies, maybe most, wouldn't assume someone has the right to defy authority, but Americans do.
Consider this story, an American, aware of his rights, aware of his responsibilities, decides to stand up for himself against an unfair situation.
It's one story.
Consider the other story. In a society of law; in a society where the protection of innocents from terror is sacrosanct; in a situation where there is no question about the right of the authority to exercise their authority; one person seeks to topple the rule of law, the right of authority, the good of the many for the selfishness of the one; one selfish man decides he is more important than everyone else.
It's another story. Lets return to the first.
A man works hard and uses his hard earned rewards to purchase the right to serve his patients without losing his right to travel. He buys a ticket to fly, gets his seat, and has every reasonable expectation to be able to fulfill his obligation to his patients after his flight back. Yet someone decides his choices and dedication don't matter. His rights and obligations don't matter in comparison to a corporation's desire to serve its own needs. He decides that he will not give in to the tyranny. He will stick to his principles. He will NOT be moved.
Back to the other story.
A company does its best to serve the needs of its customers. It has the ability to move most people where they need to go, most of the time, but every ticket is sold with the written and clear understanding that they must do what is best of the many, not necessarily the few. In the event that they have to do what is best for the many at the expense of the few; they give the few fair compensation, backed up by law, backed up by industry standard. If something should go terribly wrong, so wrong that physical force is required, then they turn ask police to use the physical force required, never resorting to physical force themselves when lawful authority is available. Eventually it happens. Some obstinate individual refuses to acknowledge the rules, refuses to acknowledge the limits of the opportunity you've tried to grant them, refuses to acknowledge the authority granted you by law and by polite society. In that instance, you have exhausted all reasonable other alternatives so you call upon lawful authority to exercise the authority you're entitled to and use physical force to exert your rights.
Which story is true? Both. Which is right? Both. Which is the one that deserves your support? I don't know.
This is two reasonable viewpoints coming into conflict. There is no simple solution. If you give individuals rights based on expectations regardless of what they bother to learn, then you reward stupidity. If you give corporations the right to do whatever they can get away with, then you open the possibility that corporations will take advantage of the ignorance and laziness of the common man in order to abuse him for your own reward.
I cannot do this conflict of ideas justice in less than a novel or two***, but it troubles me to cut it so short, long as it may seem. In the interest of brevity*** I will sum it up thusly: No man should ignore the terms of the opportunity extended him on the basis of ignorance. No company should ignore the humanity of its customers and their inherent nobility. Both the company and man failed in this story. It was a failure on both sides and a tragedy that has no winner in the end.
* - is the universe deterministic? What tiny differences would have been necessary to have allowed this situation to start but have had it ended differently?
** - Okay, maybe I am.
*** - This is not it, despite appearances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:55PM
United has admitted they were totally wrong.
The CEO specifically stated that the passenger did NOTHING wrong.
Violence is not an acceptable response to non-violent resistance.
You are not just wrong and boot-licking , you are now contradicting your corporate masters.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:21PM (7 children)
It's private property. If you don't leave when asked it's called trespassing which is a crime. You don't have a right to be on the plane so gtfo when asked.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)
Nice to hear from the Chicago Aviation Police. How's your day going?
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:36PM
Well it depends how many faces he/she have bashed in since coffee break doesn't it?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:48PM
No, it is not "private property". It is government regulated corporate property, publicly traded - there is nothing private about an aircraft. Absolutely nothing. The airline is operating a service. When services are paid for up front, one has every right to expect those services to be performed in a timely manner.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:59PM (3 children)
When a contract has been made ie the ticket. The property is lended to the ticket holder and anything else is breach of contract.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:37PM (2 children)
Are you the contracts guy?, forgot to go ac for this one.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:52PM (1 child)
Who is the contracts guy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:44PM
I assume GP means the "violently imposed monopoly" guy.
I'm surprised he didn't show up for this story.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:41PM (5 children)
I had a similar experience with United many years ago.
I boarded a relatively empty US coast to coast flight (flight time ~5 hours) with my sedated cats.
A deadheading [wikipedia.org] flight attendant took issue with my dry cough and I was removed from the flight over my objections. It was explained to me that it was a "safety" issue as all air is recycled in the pressurized cabin.
However, the ground agents profusely apologized and put me on the very next flight, giving the lie to that explanation. Due to the additional time waiting for another flight, my cats came out of their sedation long before we landed and were somewhat traumatized by the experience.
As such, I no longer fly United as they are scumbags.
That said, much like on ships at sea, the captain of an airplane has broad authority and wide discretion to safeguard the plane, crew and passengers.
As evidenced in cases such as Cerqueira v. American Airlines [findlaw.com], airplane captains have broad immunity as well.
Given Cerqueira and other, similar decisions, any lawsuits brought by this poor guy will likely not succeed. More's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:55PM (4 children)
IANAL, but I have by now read a couple of article by lawyers. It's not the wild west, with airline captains shooting passengers at will. It's a heavily regulated industry, and the regulations are pretty clear. As I understand the situation, they do have the right to remove passengers, but for a specific list of reasons: disruptive behavior, etc.. The passenger in this case did not meet any of the listed criteria.
They also have the right to prevent passengers from boarding the plane. This is the point in time where denial of service due to overbooking is allowed. Overbooking is not one of the reasons listed for removing passengers already on the plane.
United has totally screwed the pooch on this one.
As for the police who removed the passenger: They should have known that they had no right to remove the passenger. Failing that - the passenger is 67 years old, not particularly big, and was not being physically violent - the tactics they used were utterly inappropriate.
They and especially their supervisors ought to all be hung out to dry. Won't happen, and that is the biggest problem of all.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @07:00PM (3 children)
IANAL, but I have by now read a couple of article by lawyers. It's not the wild west, with airline captains shooting passengers at will. It's a heavily regulated industry, and the regulations are pretty clear. As I understand the situation, they do have the right to remove passengers, but for a specific list of reasons: disruptive behavior, etc.. The passenger in this case did not meet any of the listed criteria.
That's true. However, if you read the appeals court decision I linked to, you'll see that the court determined that any inappropriate use of discretion was specifically on the plane's captain and the airline was not responsible. This was the main line of reasoning for reversing the jury verdict in Cerqueira v. American Airlines [findlaw.com].
They and especially their supervisors ought to all be hung out to dry. Won't happen, and that is the biggest problem of all.
This is nothing new (as my anecdote and many others can attest to), and won't change.
IANAL either, but regardless of what you may have read, plane (and ship) captains have broad discretion and authority backed up with a pretty expansive interpretation of qualified immunity.
This incident, especially the police violence, points up just how much contempt the powers-that-be have for us. As you pointed out, things are unlikely to change anytime soon. As I said before, more's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
In that case, the man was acting suspicious.
I don't think that is the case in this more recent incident.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:08PM
In that case, the man was acting suspicious.
I don't think that is the case in this more recent incident.
In that case, the man complied with all orders from the flight crew.
The doctor repeatedly refused to disembark after being ordered to do so.
Which set of actions are Federal crimes?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:54PM
The FAA has strict rules for the pilot in command (PIC).
But it's not clear that the pilot was in command.
Usually, the gate agent is in charge of the plane until they close the doors and/or push back.
There was once an official transfer of control with a salute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
This guy is going to milk United Airlines for as much as he can screw out of them. Check his history. He saw an opportunity and played it very well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:31PM
I think he just wanted to go home and wanted them to pick somebody else.
Whatever it is UA deserve getting screwed.
As far as I've seen:
1) Most other airlines don't handle more passengers than seats the way UA does.
2) And even if their staff mishandle passengers their CEO doesn't defend and praise them for going "above and beyond": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/11/read-united-ceos-painfully-tone-deaf-letter-employees-man-forcibly/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Some are playing up his history, however if you fly UA enough, stuff like that can happen to you. This is not an isolated incident: http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html [latimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:58PM
I say let him. Corporations are scum, cops are scum, and this whole thing is about scum. The guy should get tens of millions in compensation, if only to take that money away from the scum.
You bring up an interesting point though. Do people that hate on "SJWs" take issue with the Social Justice goal itself, or do they actually take issue with anybody getting back more than they deserve for being wronged? It seems like it's the latter, at least for you. Because first of all, there is no Social Justice goal at play here at all - unless you consider "old white male getting what he payed for and is legally entitled to instead of being arbitrarily beaten by government agents" a Social Justice problem. And if you think that United is going to change its ways just because of penalties equal to the man's actual economic loss, think again. A penalty less than $100,000 is chump change to an organization of that size.
But sure, go right on ahead thinking that there is a dangerous element to our society that threatens to destroy our values with their moral crusades. Then look in the mirror, because it's you and the rest of your corporations-cops-and-authorities-in-general-are-always-right scum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:28PM (2 children)
"Stampede of booking cancellations may bankrupt United".
Nuff said, vote with your feet/wallet. Economics 101.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:36PM
Haven't they been bankrupt before? Weren't they bailed out by the American taxpayer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:15AM
"Stampede of booking cancellations may bankrupt United".
it won't make a difference in the US, its effectively an oligopoly here, there aren't enough available seats on other carriers to accomodate enough boycotting passengers.
But they are fucked in China. They make a fair amount of money in China and the chinese see this as a case of straight-up racism.
I'm inclined to agree too. He probably wasn't selected because he's chinese. But his foreign accent and over-all non-whiteness almost certainly contributed to the escalation. An old white guy, wearing decent clothes who said he was a doctor would have been treated a lot more respectfully. Especially considering the cop most directly responsible for the escalation has a long history of pulling shady and was forced to resign from his previous job with the chicago PD which itself has major problems with racism. [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:04AM
This is such an obvious faux pas with predictable streisanding consequenses that I'm thinking that it might be intentional. They will get a lot of "enemies" this way but also a slightly bigger amount of people will hear about them at all and if the difference between those two numbers is larger than their otherwise predicted growth in near future, this will play to their benefit.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:54AM
On the risk that this is off-topic, how is his wife doing? Was she too assaulted and dragged limply off the plane? There doesn't seem to be any mention of her treatment. Maybe he was only assaulted and forcibly removed because he was a man?