Here is the problem in a nutshell: They asked people to give up their seats AFTER the plane was boarded.
It’s a psychological thing. Once you are in your seat, you feel as though you are in YOUR seat and you want to get to your destination. But you don’t really “have” a seat until you are in it.
I’ve seen airlines do this sort of thing a LOT, but it is always before boarding begins. Nobody is being asked to vacate a seat. Rather, they are being asked to be refunded, with a bonus, for something they have purchased but not yet taken possession of.
The airline has every right to do what they did, but it is bad publicity when you do it the way they did it. In the end, they are the one hurt by this.
Now, if their normal MO is, in fact, to do it before boarding begins, maybe they should have bit the bullet on this one and not tried it after boarding, and tried to find another way to get the crew to their destination.
I’m sure that is a lesson they learned here.
An airline should NEVER ask a customer to vacate their seat, even if it is within the airline’s rights, unless it is a serious emergency. It’s seriously messed up. It treats people like cattle, even more than Southwest’s cattle call. Sure, passengers may be, technically, just cattle, but you make them actually feel like it at your own risk.
And once the airline insists you are to get off, and you refuse, force will be used. It is how the world works. Expect it. And don’t cry when it happens.
Agreed. That was a big sack of stupid.
Exactly. If you look at the fine print in United's "terms of carriage" the process for dealing with overbooking BEFORE BOARDING is fully covered, as are the terms for denying carriage AFTER boarding... which do NOT include overbooking as a valid reason.
By the time boarding began, United should have already known how many crew would joining the flight and should have dealt with an overbooking situation BEFORE the boarding.
This was a screw-up by United in that their procedures for employees needing to deadhead somewhere should have to arrange their trip with their employer in a timely manner... before scheduled boarding time. If an employee shows up at the gate after the plane has pulled back and is waiting to take off should they bring the plane back, kick someone off and delay the flight for hours to accommodate the employee who for whatever reason didn't schedule their intent with the airline in advance?
There needs to be balance between the needs of the airline and its employees and the customers... I think United crossed that line this time.
That’s an awesome post!
So many are arguing that the airline had the right to kick him off; it wasn’t illegal, yada, yada, yada, but that’s just hair-splitting legalese.
It’s the optics. It makes them look like morons. And immoral to most fair-minded people. However, we’ve had some lawyers argue otherwise. Still, some lawyers have no ethics beyond the letter of the law.
Your statement is the first comment I have read that correctly identifies the germaine legal point. The fulfillment of the legal contract is satisfied by both parties when the passenger is seated. From that point the seat belongs to the paid customer for the duration of the flight. Unless there is a violation of rules for travel, the passenger is entitled to complete travel. The “bump” rule is applicable under law only prior to boarding. Think of it like this; a person enters into a contract to lease a home for a month. At anytime leading up to occupancy there may be a valid reason for the owner to cancel the contract. However, after the leasee occupies the home for the contracted period, the owner may not evict the leasee if no infraction of rules has occurred. IMHO.