United Broke Its Contract with Flyers

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/united-broke-its-contract-with-frequent-flyers

by ColinWright • 9 years ago

207 286 9 years ago

UhUhUhUh• 9 years ago

Let's just note that giving the guy a 1st class ticket or even a private jet to his destination would have been less expensive. And could even have enhanced UA's image and business.

ScottBurson5• 9 years ago

They could just as easily have flown their employees to Louisville on a private jet.

I have even seen it suggested that the employees could even have gone by taxi, though I don't know if that was really practical.

Anyway, seems to me the best solution would have been to simply keep raising their offer for compensation until they got enough volunteers. Whatever they had to pay would have been far less than the $1.6B hit they took to their stock price.

(I actually like Delta's solution the best: they ask you when you check in how much you would accept to get bumped. It's fair and efficient.)

gt565k• 9 years ago

I had a flight get delayed twice for a few hours and then a smaller plane arrived, so people had to get bumped.

I waited for a bit and then talked to the Delta rep at the counter, explaining that I really needed to get to my destination soon as my friend was waiting to pick me up, and if they had a flight available in the coming hour or two, I'd volunteer to be bumped.

Received a $400 voucher, and got placed in 1st class on a flight which departed 30 minutes after my delayed flight.

It was a win-win. I pounded 3 heinekens and had a jolly time.

jenamety• 9 years ago

I have even seen it suggested that the employees could even have gone by taxi, though I don't know if that was really practical.

I have a feeling the contract with the Pilot and FA unions squashes that idea rather quickly.

Eric_WVGG• 9 years ago

re: Delta's solution, last week my mother effectively got her summer vacation flight to NYC paid for this way.

Alupis2• 9 years ago

Well, if we're comparing their stock price hit vs. paying for alternative transportation for the 4 employees; United could have sent all 4 employees to the ISS and back for far less[1] than the $1.6 billion market cap loss.

[1] http://www.space.com/20897-nasa-russia-astronaut-launches-20...

leopoldo• 9 years ago

I actually agree that it is what they should have done. OR at least go up to the $1,350 that the regulation stipulates.

However I find it difficult to believe that the Airline (or the flight attendants manager) would have allowed a $5,000 compensation for the seat. Because they had no way of knowing how this was gonna unravel.

Why the hell did you give this customer $5,000 for his seat, are you CRAZY?
> M'am, I just prevented the biggest PR shitstorm in our company's history
You're fired, and we'll make you pay those 5 grand

/ :)

gshulegaard• 9 years ago

I actually like Delta's solution the best: they ask you when you check in how much you would accept to get bumped. It's fair and efficient.

This is kind of like a recruiter asking you what your current and expected salary is. I wouldn't call it fair and it is only efficient for the airline which can then use that information to bump customers with the lowest thresholds, maximizing producer (the airline) surplus.

ufmace4• 9 years ago

they ask you when you check in how much you would accept to get bumped

I don't like the sound of that much - how many people actually know or are prepared to think straight about how much money they would accept to get bumped when they're checking in?

I'd rather the system be that, if they need to bump someone, they start with a public offer of a modest amount, then keep increasing it until either somebody accepts or it gets so high that it's cheaper to do something else.

AnimalMuppet3• 9 years ago

I have even seen it suggested that the employees could even have gone by taxi, though I don't know if that was really practical.

It would have taken five hours. By itself, that's fine. But according to FAA rules, what is their status during those five hours? If they're on duty, they either need eight hours off duty once they get to Louisville, or they have a limited amount of time they can be on duty once they get there. (If that time doesn't count as on duty, of course, no problem.)

JshWright• 9 years ago

American Airlines once put me in a cab from Baltimore to Philadelphia after my flight out of Baltimore got cancelled (and the only viable alternative flight was later that day in Philly).

Chicago -> Louisville is a little further than Baltimore -> Philly, but it still seems manageable. The only question is, would the crew have been "on the clock" (counting against their hourly limits).

kelnos15• 9 years ago

I read somewhere (unverified) that they couldn't send the crew to their destination via taxi/limo due to union regs.

Wasn't aware of that feature of Delta's check-in; that's actually really smart.

I'd be in favor of a system where involuntary bumps are banned, and the airline just takes (cash) bids for people who might volunteer, and is required to take the N lowest bids. I'd be ok with something like allowing the compensation to be vouchers if the airline is willing to make the voucher amount 2x (or something) of the cash amount.

AdamJacobMuller• 9 years ago

keep raising their offer for compensation

That's backwards from a psychological point of view, that will entice people to hold out for a larger offer later.

How they should handle it is very simple. Pick a very large number, lets say 10k, tell everyone on the plane to raise their hand if they're willing to get off the plane for 10k.

Obviously a lot (probably way more than half) will raise their hands. Now, tell everyone "keep your hand up if you're willing to get off for 7500," rinse, repeat until you get to only four people with their hands up.

I bet united could have gotten four passengers off that plane for LESS than the $800/each that they offered at the beginning, probably a LOT less and the four passengers would have been happy about it, too.

FabHK8• 9 years ago

That "just as easy" option with a private jet or Uber is an assumption.

There a crew resting hour regulations that might have prevented the crew from operating the next flight had they driven, and union contracts that stipulate how deadheading crew can be transported.

Again, all of those might be renegotiated at some point, but that doesn't mean there is an easy obvious alternative at hand now every time a pax refuses to deplane.

yourapostasy• 9 years ago

The ceiling on compensation to pax is $10,850, based upon a quick quote I got from executivejetmanagement.com for booking a 7 pax small jet in the next 3 hours, ORD-SDF. They quoted me a range $7,590 - $10,850, so this is the worst-case scenario.

So UA's policy is possibly based upon a "stay below some non-market-related amount" internal goal versus recognizing that they were throwing away perfectly useful pricing signals every time they enacted these kinds of policies. If they reached $2712.50 per seat for those four deadheading crew members in the auction with no takers (highly unlikely), then that is not just signaling it is cheaper to charter a private jet, but also signals pricing information to inform their route planning and marketing teams.

I see this all the time in business when helping clients implement their policies into software. There are often policies set for what amounts to someone with policy making power within the organization trying to game the metrics they are compensated by, and it ends up blinding the company to valuable market information that they then turn around to spend a minor fortune upon obtaining a very low-fidelity equivalent in lengthy, futile sales and marketing efforts.

koenigdavidmj5• 9 years ago

Up until a week ago, four times the fare plus your hotel if necessary was sufficient remedy for this sort of event. It's a new thing for grown adults to throw temper tantrums and then get nearly-universal public support for their cause. It's only now that companies need to be proactive in knowing how to handle this of all things.

tigershark2• 9 years ago

Ah ok. So let's say that you are getting married the next morning and you are removed from a flight that you boarded (that is illegal and in breach of the contract). I guess that you'll be happy to miss your wedding for 4 times the fare and a night in the hotel. As far as I remember this is the first time that I've seen such an abuse, with a company removing a boarded passenger on a whim. But apparently you can always find people that are ready to justify such abuses. I'd be curious to hear your opinion in case the hypothetical scenario that I presented happened to you.

cmurf2• 9 years ago

The passenger wasn't throwing a temper tantrum, he was being assaulted. If that sort of thing happened in any other civil context where there weren't babies around, like a bar, the assaulter would get their asses kicked. And that's even if they're police, if they have not made an arrest. If they tell you you're under arrest, you must comply even though they still can't use excessive force, and even if you think it is an unlawful arrest. If you're not under arrest, any force is an attack and legally you can defend yourself. Plummer vs State.

mbesto• 9 years ago

Except it's not. You've just set a precedent that would invariably become way more expensive in aggregate.

mkhpalm• 9 years ago

Lets also not forget to note that United's way of handling the situation after it went viral was to dig up dirt and defame Dao. I couldn't believe what I was hearing regarding unrelated personal past issues Dao had that were suddenly being broadcast by main stream media.

bostonpete• 9 years ago

The article isn't claiming that united broke its contract with frequent flyers -- it's discussing the contract included in every ticket. The Bloomberg (and therefore HN) title got this wrong.

dang• 9 years ago

Good point. s/Frequent//.

mvpu2• 9 years ago

In the social era airlines (or any company for that matter) shouldn't be worried about breaching or keeping their contracts on paper... they should be worried about 1-click brand damage from a frustrated customer screaming on Twitter or Facebook. Social media is unforgiving, customer experience is everything.

cortesoft6• 9 years ago

You say social media is unforgiving, but is it really? In the short term, sure, but you think this will have a lasting impact on United? Social media is fickle, if nothing else. It will move on to something else soon enough, and completely forget about this incident.

maxerickson4• 9 years ago

They've said they aren't going to call police just to remove passengers anymore. I bet they stick with that for quite some time.

mvpu2• 9 years ago

Social media is more than fickle.. it amplifies the breadth (spreads to lots of people fast) and depth (make it look worse) of incidents. Millions of people have now seen that brutal United video, and remembered that it's all United's fault. Tomorrow when there's another United incident, albeit minor, regular and social media will amplify it - one more hit for the consumer. Each incident in isolation will be forgotten, but the bad taste remains. Look at what's happening with Uber, Bill Oreilly, etc.

component• 9 years ago

[1] Pepsi: That was the biggest PR blunder of the week, year maybe.

United: Hold my beer.

Sean Spicer: LEEEEEEEEEERROOOOOOOY JEEEENNNNNNKINS!

Fickle indeed. Hopefully United learns from this incident, tho I think it's unlikely

There's also an episode of It's Always sunny in Philadelphia (S12E04) where they talk about the 24 hour news cycle - which pretty much sums up social media unforgiving nature

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/lance_bradley/status/851864862426...

nawtacawp• 9 years ago

Here's one example: me. I fly pretty much weekly for work, paid by the company I work for. The online reservation system my company uses allows me to select from various airlines and times. Guess which airline I am not picking? I was flying United, so they lost weekly airfare from at least me.

Asooka2• 9 years ago

Remember when United almost killed people's dogs? Remember when they broke a guitar and the guy wrote two popular songs about it? Neither do I, this too will pass.

jnwatson• 9 years ago

The biggest issue was that United made clear that the implicit agreement between itself and its customers is void. Their policies and procedures reflect a certain attitude that many potential fliers didn't realize were part of the deal. And there's no walking that back.

13of40• 9 years ago

no walking that back

I don't think it's as dire as you make it sound. The reason is that the real implicit agreement most of us have with our society is that everyone is as helpful and congenial as possible as long as it keeps the wheels turning. Once you run afoul of the airline, or the sheriff, or the HR department, you can be stomped down in the blink of an eye, and even if you successfully challenge it legally, at the end of the day you've still lost some amount of money, time, or health fighting it.

Someone in that mindset is going to look at their Expedia search and still sort by price, because they realize that every airline is playing the same game, and the one in a million chance of being forcibly removed from the plane over a technicality is just one of those gambles that everyone takes whenever they step outside their house.

(That said, if I sort by price and Delta and United come up the same, I'm picking Delta.)

hartator• 9 years ago

(That said, if I sort by price and Delta and United come up the same, I'm picking Delta.)

Except that the Delta will probably just be the United sold via Delta!

ghaff14• 9 years ago

So many armchair lawyers who have suddenly become so expert in the fine print of contracts of carriage.

Yes, United should have done anything reasonable to get a volunteer to get out of their seat and leave the flight. But this fine parsing around when an airline is allowed to deplane someone is pretty silly. What if the captain determined that he needed to take some weight off the flight? Would the airline be allowed to involuntarily deplane someone in that case?

And guess what. I have been bumped off a flight after I was sitting down for unknown reasons. (It was quite a while ago.) And I managed to avoid getting into a tussle with airport security over it.

pm90• 9 years ago

While you complied and everything worked out for you, it doesn't mean that everyone should do the same. I just don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Yes, its well within their legal rights to request a passenger to deplane, but if he refuses, while they do have the right to forcibly deplane the person, they would have done much better if they had found alternatives.

ghaff14• 9 years ago

As I said "United should have done anything reasonable to get a volunteer to get out of their seat and leave the flight."

However, once the flight crew directly asked him to leave, they had three choices. What they did, sit at the gate until he changes his mind, or cancel the flight. If I'm flight crew and there's someone on board who is not following crew instructions, I'm not flying with them on board.

samastur• 9 years ago

The article's author is a law professor.

CalChris• 9 years ago

Yep.

He is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

noxToken• 9 years ago

There's a stark difference in what you're allowed to do and what you should do. A parent is allowed to ground their child for a month for every C they make, but when you explore the context of why the child made the C and the alternatives to grounding them for a month, is that really the best option? In some cases, I'm sure it is. In most, probably not.

tyingq15• 9 years ago

You're playing armchair lawyer as well though.

There are valid reasons an airline can forcibly remove boarded passengers. It's not clear that the United situation(s) were valid though.

It's fairly complex due to "common carrier" laws, airport city laws, as well as United's own contract of carriage. I can't claim 100% that they weren't technically allowed to do what they did. But there is more than one aviation attorney chiming in and claiming they had no legal standing.

United's CEO said as much himself.

"We are not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off, to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger -- we can't do that."

The word "can't" versus "won't" seems deliberate.

Edit: Also, a pet peeve of mine. You've probably heard a flight attendant tell someone something along the lines of "It's illegal to disobey instructions from a flight crew." That's complete bullshit. There is a federal law about "interfering with a flight crew". But it only applies after the doors are closed, and only applies in situations that involve "assaulting or intimidating a flight crew".

Chaebixi2• 9 years ago

Edit: Also, a pet peeve of mine. You've probably heard a flight attendant tell someone something along the lines of "It's illegal to disobey instructions from a flight crew." That's complete bullshit. There is a federal law about "interfering with a flight crew". But it only applies after the doors are closed, and only applies in situations that involve "assaulting or intimidating a flight crew".

Honestly, I think a succinct statement to that effect should be legally required to be posted prominently in every plane, enough so passengers actually read it.

I used to think flight attendant power trips were just annoying, but people are now literally getting beaten up as a result of them.

phil21• 9 years ago

But it only applies after the doors are closed

Ding ding ding. Which means all the stupid pontification over whether or not the flight was "boarded" is borderline ridiculous and likely disingenuous at best.

If this flight had closed the doors and then came back to the gate to remove the passenger? All these arguments would have weight. But it's quite clear to me that he was IDB'ed like any myriad other situations I've witnessed. Being IDB'ed makes no difference if you're at the gate or on the plane - shit happens after you board as well. Has no one here been on a flight that had to IDB someone prior to the door closing due to weight issues?

Thus, it's simple trespass once he refused to leave. Either the flight was a flight and subject to all those rules, or it was just a piece of private property sitting on the ground.

I can see no way for someone to make a successful argument that once your feet move past the threshold of the aircraft you have an inviolable right to be there regardless of the wishes of the aircraft owner.

colmvp2• 9 years ago

I hope you realize that a LOT of actual lawyers have weighed in on this case, and the majority believe that United is in the wrong here.

dragonwriter• 9 years ago

So many armchair lawyers

The author is a real lawyer, not the armchair kind. So put away your misdirected rant.

And guess what. I have been bumped off a flight after I was sitting down for unknown reasons.

I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. "I obeyed a direction in circumstances which may or may not have been similar in any relevant manner" has no bearing on whether the order, the passengers response, or the law enforcement intervention were appropriate, legally, morally, or otherwise.

mnm13• 9 years ago

"There’s nothing illegal about breaching a contract."

No there isn't. But there is something illegal about lying to police, filing false police reports, and using such false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy. There is no question United did this, it's illegal, and it's criminal. They should be charged by the prosecutor as should the cops who did the actual beating. They are equally responsible as United. The police failed to investigate and beat up an innocent person because of their failure to understand the situation. They should lose their jobs and pensions; ideally they should go to jail.

cortesoft6• 9 years ago

Wait, how did they file a false police report? Even if they are breaking the contract, they are allowed to ask the passenger to leave the plane (as the article points out). Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing (again, doesn't matter that the airline broke its contract by asking him to leave). The airline called the cops and asked them to remove the passenger. Where did they lie or file a false police report?

mnm13• 9 years ago

By saying or implying it is within their rights to remove the passenger when it clearly wasn't.

HarryHirsch2• 9 years ago

Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing

You state that as fact, but is that true? The passenger and airline are bound by a contract of carriage, and the passenger arguably did not violate any of the stipulations in there. The airline had no business asking him to leave. I'd very much like to see this hashed out in court one way or the other, but the fear is that they'll settle without admission of liability and under seal.

1024core• 9 years ago

He is "trespassing" only when he's not legally allowed to be on the plane. He gained the right to be on the plane by paying United for the privilege, and United agreed by issuing him a ticket, a boarding pass and reserving a seat for him.

Now, if they want to renege from their part of the agreement, they have to refund him the money. Just 'promising' to refund the money is not sufficient; if he wants, he must get the cash in hand. After all, United issued a ticket only when they had the cash in hand, right? Why should he be obligated to relinquish his half of the contract just based on a promise to pay later?

ufmace4• 9 years ago

That's pretty far off on basically every point.

There's no such thing as "using false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy". If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that.

Regarding "lying to police" and "filing false police reports", all the police need to be concerned about is that he was asked to leave by someone with authority to do so, and refuses to leave. Airline pilots and other such proprietors generally have broad discretion to require people to leave. If he has a contract that requires him to be transported, then he has a civil claim against the airline, but the order to leave by the captain is still entirely legitimate.

It is also not the responsibility of the police to investigate the reasons behind a request to leave and determine if they are legitimate or not according to contracts. The law recognizes that the courts are for making real determinations of facts, officers on a scene have broad discretion to do what appears to be the law based on the information they have at the time. And in this case, they were entirely right - the crew does have the authority to demand that someone leave and does not need to justify that to anyone. Failure to provide the service under contract is a civil claim to be addressed in court later. Or, the short version, this classic applies - you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

I really don't get the need in these media sensation cases to burn everyone involved at the stake. Isn't it bad enough what United actually did wrong, which is to have a dumb policy for how to handle overbookings and crew transport? For nobody to look at the situation there and step back and try to find someone else more willing to take another flight?

There's a reason why we have due process instead of lynch mobs - the next person to make a mistake and be the target of the internet frenzy could be you. If you make a mistake someday and it gets blown up on the internet, wouldn't you rather face a reasoned punishment for the actual laws it can be proven that you actually broke, instead of having your life completely destroyed because everyone's really pissed off?

onli• 9 years ago

If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that.

It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane.

They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that.

It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.

mnm13• 9 years ago

I think it's quite clear United had no such authority from the article. Here's one that goes into more detail: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-...

srtjstjsj9• 9 years ago

Did a captain order him to leave, or did a booking agent?

Why shouldn't United let Dao stay in is seat (as required by law) and then sue him afterward? Why should Dao be the one to cave in?

slapshot5• 9 years ago

[Deleted]

ghaff14• 9 years ago

If this hadn't hit social media, I'd be willing to bet good money that he'd have been arrested and facing felony charges.

TillE• 9 years ago

Funny how cops and corporations have difficulty lying and/or abusing their power when there's video evidence, huh?

frgtpsswrdlame2• 9 years ago

The only person who should go to jail is the person who thought he was so much more important than everyone else on his plane that he was the only one who refused to leave when asked, legally, by a police officer. Not only did he think he was more important than everyone on HIS plane, he thought he was more important than the people on the plane that was going to get cancelled because it didn't have a flight crew. Running back onto a plane, screaming, after being removed by law enforcement is a crime. He should go to jail.

This is such a crazy level of corporate apology that it's got to be sarcastic. United was not in the right to remove him. He stood up to that. If United really wanted to make room they should go for the market-based solution of just continuing to increase the price they were willing to pay for you to vacate your seat.

slapshot5• 9 years ago

[Deleted]

slapshot5• 9 years ago

Editing people's quotes is not cool. Please stop.

tyingq15• 9 years ago

On this: "Running back onto a plane, screaming, after being removed by law enforcement is a crime."

Probably worth noting that people with concussions, that just went through something fairly traumatic, may do odd things.

danderino6• 9 years ago

Kicking someone off was the right decision if it meant another flight was cancelled/delayed.

United didn't do anything criminal by asking him to leave. This is in fact the opinion of the article were supposedly discussing.

To be clear, the fact that United seems to have breached its contract with Dao doesn’t mean its action was illegal, as the headline of this otherwise helpful article by a nonlawyer on a frequent traveler website suggests. There’s nothing illegal about breaching a contract. If you do so, you simply have to pay damages. Dao’s lawyer, Thomas Demetrio, said Thursday that he is investigating possible claims against United.
And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply.

He should have left and contested the charges as a civil case.

sctb• 9 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115911 and marked it off-topic.

in_cahoots• 9 years ago

Couldn't United claim that there were four fewer 'available seats' than normal on this flight and thus it was oversold? It doesn't resolve the question of whether he was denied boarding or involuntarily removed but it does seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the first part of the contract.

jeltz3• 9 years ago

Maybe they could, but it seems like a weak argument to me given that they let everyone get seated.

ubernostrum3• 9 years ago

United's contract of carriage appears not to be super clear on when such a situation is in effect, or what they consider to be "denied boarding".

Which means this one's going to need a court to sort it out, though I believe the general principle, when the terms are ambiguous or have multiple interpretations, is to prefer the interpretation least favorable to the side that wrote the contract.

pasbesoin3• 9 years ago

Ok, here it is, basically, as I heard it in some reasoned reporting the other day:

The contract allows them to reschedule you. Period. You can be at the gate -- or even boarded -- with your "normal" fare, and a passenger can show up and pay full fare -- say a grand or two versus your $200 ticket.

It's economically advantageous for the airline to bump you and give your seat to the last-minute, full fare passenger. Even after comping you say $400 (and that's often in their script, not in actually, fungible dollars) for your inconvenience.

And, per the report, they will! Big surprise.

In short (in my words), you don't really have a ride until the plane is in the air.

If you think this is "unfair", might I suggest... gasp, some regulation?

tyingq15• 9 years ago

It's not that simple, as is usually the case when law and contracts are involved.

I suspect this will take some actual legal proceeding for there to be broad agreement.

Things that make it complex:

- Airlines are "common carriers". So they are subject to laws above and beyond a mom-and-pop restaurant on issues like refusal of service.

- They publish a "contract of carriage".

- Overbooking didn't happen, so those laws don't offer any protection

- They can't have multiple meanings of the term "boarded" and switch meanings to use it to their advantage depending on the sitation. Denied boarding has to happen before boarding.

- The door wasn't shut, and the passenger did not assault or intimidate the crew. So "interfering with a flight crew" isn't on the table.

pasbesoin3• 9 years ago

Well, then, looks like I have to pay attention to this again and update my understanding.

At the same time, this sounds like... regulation! Some form of restriction on how the terms may be interpreted and executed.

I am not entirely happy with the situation. I want to know that when I purchase a ticket to go somewhere, I'm going -- absent equipment failure or some act of God. (Or, the occasional drunken pilot...)

But, it is what it is. And I get a bit tired of all the outcry when much of such is basically coming from the people who made it this way -- through the governments they've voted for, or not voted for, as the case may be.

notacoward• 9 years ago

Well summarized, especially the last point. Terms like "crewmember" [sic] and "flight time" have very clear definitions in the relevant sections of USC and CFR. Using intuitive "common sense" definitions will lead to a wrong answer - is is often the case with anything legal. Legally, he didn't interfere with a flight crew and wasn't obligated to obey them as a flight crew.

The only charge I could see sticking here is simple trespass. United/Republic, as the owners of the vehicle in which he was sitting, had the right to evict him regardless of whether any contract says otherwise. The contract issue has to be resolved separately. However, things like common-carrier laws might complicate even that. It's entirely possible that trespass doesn't apply either.

United broke their contract. They also took action which led to violence. Those are two separate things in a legal sense, but United can and should be held accountable for both.

vivekd3• 9 years ago

This is one of the cases in law where everyone wants to argue about the contract but no one wants to sit down and read the thing.

Here contract of carriage https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

We can read the definitions section of the contract where it defines oversold

Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.

So does this apply to this case - yes, even though this individual was removed to accommodate UA employees the fact was there were more passengers holding valid tickets than there were available seats

Now scroll down to Rule 25 which gives the provisions for what would happen in the case of oversold flights - one of which allows for involuntarily denying passengers

Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority

The article may have one valid argument - that the language of the contract says "boarding" not "leaving once already seated" but I don't know how much of a difference that would make in legal terms. Is there really a world of difference between not being let on the plane and being asked to leave once you've taken your seat. I don't think there is.

It's possible that you might get this in front of a sympathetic jury and get an award. But as a lawyer, under the law it's pretty clear that United did not breach any contract. And This remains true no matter what talking heads on TV are saying.

tyingq15• 9 years ago

The counter argument would be that the Dr Dao incident was "refusal of transport": https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... because no oversell happened. You'll see none of the reasons to invoke rule 21 are valid in this case.

Or, you can argue that laws and regulations outside of the contract of carriage apply. I don't think this is a case where just the United contract of carriage settles it. There are actual aviation lawyers saying things like "this is very gray".

vivekd3• 9 years ago

as I said before oversell is defined in the contract as more passengers than available seats, it is not defined as more passengers than seats. Some of the seats were unavailable because they were given to airline employees - this, while poor customer service, is well within the defined terms of the contract.

LeifCarrotson• 9 years ago

So does this apply to this case - yes, even though this individual was removed to accommodate UA employees the fact was there were more passengers holding valid tickets than there were available seats

There were an equal number of passengers holding valid, confirmed tickets and available seats. Until United decided to reduce the number of available seats to make room for employees who did not hold valid, confirmed tickets.

the language of the contract says "boarding" ... Is there really a world of difference between not being let on the plane and being asked to leave once you've taken your seat. I don't think there is.

That is ridiculous. The act of getting on the plane and taking a seat is literally the definition of the word "boarding". Once you have boarded, you can no longer be denied boarding because you've already done it. They didn't redefine the term to mean something weird in the Rule 1 - Definitions section, so they need to abide by the normal meaning of the term.

vivekd3• 9 years ago

You are defining "boarding" narrowly as the act of getting onto a plane. I think it's clear that wasn't what's meant by the contract and it is only being interpreted in this narrow way because people are angry with United. Reading boarding in the contract suggests that it it intended to refer to the whole process before the flight.

The contract says "more passengers than available seats" not "more passengers than seats" if it were the latter your argument would be valid, in this case, seats may be unavailable for any number of reasons including there were other passengers or employees who took priority - not great customer service and I won't be flying United anytime soon - but from a standpoint of legal liability, it is well within the wording of the contract.

DannyBee4• 9 years ago

IAAL. Your analysis is quite wrong. The employees did not have valid, reserved, ticketed and confirmed seats. The rest of the contract even explicitly says employees don't, and may be removed as a result.

From the CFR:

"Confirmed reserved space" means space on a specific date and on a specific flight ... confirmed as being reserved for the accommodation of that passenger.

The employees had no confirmed and reserved space.

They also should have been the first to be removed. This is because the law requires it. The relevant CFR says that when you deny boarding or refuse transport, you must do so in a way as to minimize the number of people with valid, reserved and confirmed seats removed.

This means the employees, who did NOT have such seats, would be required by law to be removed first.

They even made it worse for themselves, it also says:" No employee or agent of UA has the authority to alter, modify, or waive any fare rules or any provision of the Contract of Carriage unless authorized by a corporate officer of UA. UA’s appointed agents and representatives are only authorized to sell Tickets for air transportation pursuant to approved fares, rules, and regulations of UA. "

So none of the people involved could have changed the rules :)

ams6110• 9 years ago

Employees traveling gratis as a perq are not the same as crew positioning for duty. The latter have valid reserved space issued by the company travel department, and their boarding priority is "must ride"

United's screwup was trying to remove the passenger. If he had been denied boarding there would be no issue.

nebabyte3• 9 years ago

Title just gave me an epiphany. Could members of that flight sue as a class for trauma/emotional distress?

CamperBob2• 9 years ago

They certainly can. That will be why everyone on the aircraft has been issued a refund.

mankash666• 9 years ago

Where's the fine print on "excessive force"? The officer(s) involved in manhandling Dr. Dao need to be brought to justice as well!

danderino6• 9 years ago

How was he manhandled?

They used enough force to pull him out of the seat and stopped.

jtrtoo• 9 years ago

I have a idea. Well, several.

1. Let's stop overbooking in the airline industry. The seats are already prepaid for. Who cares if a passenger shows or not? (It'd be different if they were losing revenue when a passenger doesn't show up; they aren't).

2. Let's take responsibility (the airline) if we fuck up (or an act of gawd enables) a situation where our own staff can't get where to a destination they need to be in per our own scheduling. This means we don't bump customers involuntarily for our fuck-up. If not enough paying customers volunteer so be it: We'll eat the impact of our fuck-up of not properly planning how to get our own staff from point B to point B (whether that means finding an alternative for them to get there, delaying some other flight, whatever).

The crux is this entire situation seems to be four distinct matters:

- Overbooking (unnecessary)

- Staff logistics (contingency plans, accepting consequences)

- Involuntary bumping (goes away with addressing the former two matters)

- Security / policing efforts for matters that aren't being handled amicably in the moment by a disagreeing party (standard police matter I presume, which has a body of knowledge and skill associated with it which may have been lacking here or needs to be adopted to plane boarding situations)

cgag2• 9 years ago

I might be ok with overbooking if they got rid of involuntary bumping and had to auction off being bumped until someone accepted the price.

adamson• 9 years ago

Imagine the game theory analyses on frequent flyer sites

markdown5• 9 years ago

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-offer-10000-to-flyers-give...

fshaun• 9 years ago

I don't think introducing an unbounded liability is the solution to this (or perhaps any) problem. Would this work for 99% of flights? Sure. But it's just asking to be gamed.

Cerium• 9 years ago

Ending overbooking would end leniency on missed flights. Many airlines allow zero or low cost rebooking for flights missed due to transportation delays "flat tire rules". I think we should just have some transparency on overbooking and limit it by some well known statistical measure.

qzervaas• 9 years ago

But the rebooked seat doesn't displace somebody on the next flight, so what's the actual cost?

dagw• 9 years ago

At least for business class tickets, if the passenger doesn't show up they have to reimburse or re-book the ticket, so they are losing revenue when a passenger doesn't show up.

The obvious answer for bumping passengers is simply an auction. At some price below what it costs to charter a private jet on short notice you will find people willing to give up their seats.

markdown5• 9 years ago

The obvious answer for bumping passengers is simply an auction.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-offer-10000-to-flyers-give...

ubernostrum3• 9 years ago

Just like economy class, business-class and first-class tickets come in multiple fare classes, and lower fare classes come with restrictions (such as not being refundable or requiring an additional fee to make changes).

Typically for US airlines, fare class "F" is the unrestricted/"full fare" for first class and is fully refundable and can be freely changed; fare class "J" is the same for business class; and fare class "Y" is the same for economy class.

United uses two codes for first class depending on the cabin arrangement. In a two-cabin (i.e., economy and first class cabins) aircraft, "F2" is the "full fare" first-class, while on a three-cabin (economy, business and first class) aircraft, it's "F3".

There is also a "pecking order" attached to the fare class which affects how and when passengers get shuffled around in case there aren't enough seats in the cabin of that fare class. The highest pecking order is, as expected, from an "F3" ticket; next in line is an "A3" (discounted three-cabin first class), then "F2", then "A2", then "J", then the lower-tier business class fares ("C", "D", "Z" and "P"), and then the full-fare economy class "Y", followed by a mix of other economy fares and "upgrade" fare classes (the "upgrade" fares are ones representing a ticket booked into one cabin but with a condition, or points/instrument attached, which grants a space-permitting right to be seated in a cabin of higher class).

dbg31415• 9 years ago

1. Let's stop overbooking in the airline industry. The seats are already prepaid for. Who cares if a passenger shows or not? (It'd be different if they were losing revenue when a passenger doesn't show up; they aren't).

So they are loosing revenue. Here's why. A certain number of flights will be delayed, and people who are supposed to be on those connections... won't be. This means if they don't overbook, they will have more empty seats. They are pretty good with averages, and even though they are overbooked it generally works out due to the math that some people miss connections.

These people paid, but they still have to be flown to their final destination. Which means putting them on later flights... if you don't want to be told, "Hey, sorry... we can't fit you for a week..." then letting the airline fudge the numbers a bit and squeeze people in and book based on statistical analysis is fine.

Plus... the cost of all this... if they fly with more open seats... the cost of all of our tickets goes up. We say with our pocketbooks that we hate price hikes... this is why we have those stupidly small seats in the first place... everyone goes to Hipmonk and selects the cheapest flight they can find... not the fastest, not the most luxurious... the cheapest. They are doing what we want by overbooking based on statistics of who misses flights.

Anyway, what needs to happen is much more simple. Just remove the cap on the vouchers. And bid on seats. No takers at $400? Go to $600. No takers at $600. Go to $800... and so on. Eventually, even on a flight full of people heading to their mother's funeral, they will hit a number that someone is willing to take in exchange for taking a later flight.

You know how after 9/11 we reinforced the cabin doors and that was the only meaningful thing we needed to do and everything else they have spent billions upon billions of dollars for was just for show? Yeah, let's not go overboard and fuck up travel any more with regulations and more hassle. The root issue here is the abysmally small cap on vouchers.

markdown5• 9 years ago

Anyway, what needs to happen is much more simple. Just remove the cap on the vouchers. And bid on seats. No takers at $400? Go to $600. No takers at $600. Go to $800... and so on. Eventually, even on a flight full of people heading to their mother's funeral, they will hit a number that someone is willing to take in exchange for taking a later flight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-offer-10000-to-flyers-give...

ghaff14• 9 years ago

There are no caps on vouchers. (Except economically where you reach a point where the airlines would just rather cancel the flight--which is a rather high bar.)

FabHK8• 9 years ago

If overbooking were stopped, load factors would drop, prices would rise, and (unnecessary) environmental pollution would arise.

jasode2• 9 years ago

- Overbooking (unnecessary)

Flight #3411 wasn't overbooked. Instead, they were perfectly booked -- the plane had 70 seats and they sold all 70 with zero no-shows. That's a dream economic outcome for the airline. What threw the monkey wrench into the situation was adding 4 last-minute employees to the sold-out flight which required that they remove 4 paying customers already in their seats. United stopped the financial incentives at $800 and then called Chicago Aviation Police.

The widespread media reporting it as "overbooked" (which was no doubt legitimized by the United CEO using the same "overbooked" language) successfully deflected part of the blame to some abstract concept ("it was the overbooking!").

Yes, people do get involuntarily bumped from overbookings all the time but that was not the situation with this specific flight.

kelnos15• 9 years ago

I get this, and agree that the flight was not overbooked.

However, let's assume for a minute that a flight was overbooked, and that the airline screwed up and issued boarding passes and seat assignments to more people than could fit on the plane. They start the boarding process before they realize their mistake. They ask for volunteers. No bites. They ask the computer to pick four unfortunate souls. One of the four won't leave the plane. Security is called. Security is overzealous and beats the guy up.

I think this scenario is just as plausible as the one that played out.

I bring this up because I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. Dr. Dao should certainly be focusing on United's improper use of IDB rules, since that's great grounds for a lawsuit.

But let's say it was my hypothetical scenario. I suspect there would be just as much outrage. While I personally think it was foolish to refuse flight crew instructions (reading the news about anything airline-related in the past 15 years suggests that's going to get you in a lot of hot water), no one deserves to get beaten up like that for that "offense".

Why are we focusing so hard on United's wrongdoing in the boarding process instead of focusing on why escalation of force is so accepted and easy?

nunez• 9 years ago

Overbooking hedges for last-minute cancellations. Wouldn't the airlines need to charge passengers more per flight in a world without it?

wnevets• 9 years ago

The contract allows the airline to deny boarding involuntarily in case of overbooking. But that’s not what happened; the airplane wasn’t oversold. And Dao wasn’t denied boarding.

Every article about this story needs to repeat this line.

zdean• 9 years ago

The article also goes on to say (in essence) that even if you assume that United was in the wrong on this point, it constitutes a breach of contract on United's part. At that point, Dao is free to sue for breach of contract...but United is free to ask him to leave.

I'm not justifying United's actions (or that of the police)...just saying that Dao unfortunately probably wouldn't have a legal argument against being asked to leave.

gyc2• 9 years ago

I don't think that is true. If you had a valid lease with a landlord for your apartment, your landlord can't just kick you out of your apartment before the end of the lease if you haven't violated any of the contractual terms of the lease.

kelnos15• 9 years ago

Dao may not have a legal argument to defend his refusal to leave after being asked to, but he almost certainly has grounds to sue for breach of contract just for being asked to leave.

danderino6• 9 years ago

Boarding isn't defined in the contract of carriage.

Most airline employees to use it as meaning until the doors are locked

Avernar• 9 years ago

Just read another article where the author said that if the word or term is not defined in the contract then the basic meaning is what's used. So what most airline employees think it means is irrelavent.

williamle8300• 9 years ago

Let's also remember that David Dao was physically assaulted, which is a separate matter and that cop should be charged for the crime of using excessive force.

danderino6• 9 years ago

How was he physically assaulted?

He was told he'd be removed forcefully and the man said he didn't care. He was removed forcefully with adequate force.

srtjstjsj9• 9 years ago

you can find the answer to your question here: https://www.google.com/search?q=united+dao

JumpCrisscross• 9 years ago

There is a bill in the works with a simple rule: you cannot remove seated passengers for non-safety reasons [1]. If you care about this issue, please call your U.S. Senators and ask them to prioritize it.

[1] http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/328497-dem-plans-bi...

kelnos15• 9 years ago

I don't think this is necessary, or even desired. United's Contract of Carriage specifies conditions for removing someone from a plane (all of which I think are reasonable). If they violated that contract (which it seems they have), then they're legally liable, and Dao (and the other three passengers) have grounds to sue. That's how it's supposed to work, and I think that's sufficient. Successful suits (or out of court settlements) and negative PR will make it unpalatable for airlines to do this as a matter of habit.

hugodahl• 9 years ago

Am I the only one who interpreted the title as breaking a contract with the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team?

rurban• 9 years ago

It's stronger than just "Broke Its Contract with Flyers". United explicitly broke FAA rules, in both incidents in the last week.

Both were already seated, when someone more important to them arrived (too late). Both of them violated not any of the FAA rules by denying to leave the plane or change seats.

stuaxo• 9 years ago

Ah, the old implicit contract of don't beat your customers.

United Broke Its Contract with Flyers

Related Stories