United Airlines PR fiasco - police forcibly remove man from overbooked flight
04-11-2017, 01:30 AM
From the economist. Seems like this is not an overbooking situation.
"UA and Munoz really screwed the pooch here, and the media need to stop using the term "Oversold" when describing the circumstances of the flight that brought about this situation.
.
According to details from UA's own agents' description of the incident, the flight was not "oversold" according to UA's definition of that term. (which can be found here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...riage.aspx)
.
Here's how UA defines "oversold" in the "Definitions" section of its "Contract of Carriage Document": "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."
.
Here's what they say happened:
.
"The sequence of events is based on preliminary reports submitted by the airline's employees which states:
.
Summary of Flight 3411:
• On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United’s gate agents were approached by crew members that were told they needed to board the flight.
• We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
• He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
• Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
• Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist — running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
.
Notice that the very first bullet point item states that the plane was "fully boarded" (all ticketed passengers had checked-in and been seated). ONLY THEN were the agents approached by UA crew members who needed to be accommodated on the flight.
.
Based on this revelation, it's looking like the problem was not that the flight was "oversold" (which is legal, and a valid reason that passengers can be denied boarding privileges), but rather that UA had a last-minute logistical issue that the gate agents thought they could pass off as an "oversold" flight (sneaky, sneaky). They probably could have gotten away with it too, if the flight hadn't been fully boarded already. After all, how would any passenger know how many tickets were actually sold for the flight before boarding? But again, this trick fails once the flight is already fully boarded, as was the case here. (not just in actuality, but probably legally, as well)
.
UA enumerates very specific reasons why it can remove a passenger in its "Contract of Carriage" (this is "Rule 21- Refusal of Transport https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...Mobil...), and the situation that appears to be in play here (the need to get UA employees to a destination) is not stated in this section of the contract.
.
UA also details its policy for compensating passengers for "involuntary removal from Oversold flights" (as Rule 25 ) but again, this doesn't come into play because A). the flight wasn't "oversold" according to UA's own definition; and B). this rule covers scenarios that occur PRIOR TO BOARDING. As UA states in their own summary of the events, the flight was already "fully boarded."
.
UA appears to be attempting to rest the legitimacy of their action on their claim that the removed customer was "disorderly, offensive, or abusive" because he "he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions" and that he became more "more disruptive and belligerent" as they continued to badger him (even though the crew member's instruction was probably 'get off the plane'; a demand they had no justification for making according to the COC document)
.
Rather than waiting for all of the facts to come in, Munoz is digging the company further into a legal hole by releasing this information which damages the customer's reputation (even if it was only meant for internal consumption, this is being sent to tens of thousands of people). He may be able to pin the actual physical damage on the airport security, and may be able to pass of the buck to United Express/Republic Airlines for the actions of the agents (the actual operators of the flight). But if he continues to paint the customer as the one at fault (when it appears he wasn't) he likely won't be able to escape a lawsuit for defamation."
"UA and Munoz really screwed the pooch here, and the media need to stop using the term "Oversold" when describing the circumstances of the flight that brought about this situation.
.
According to details from UA's own agents' description of the incident, the flight was not "oversold" according to UA's definition of that term. (which can be found here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...riage.aspx)
.
Here's how UA defines "oversold" in the "Definitions" section of its "Contract of Carriage Document": "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."
.
Here's what they say happened:
.
"The sequence of events is based on preliminary reports submitted by the airline's employees which states:
.
Summary of Flight 3411:
• On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United’s gate agents were approached by crew members that were told they needed to board the flight.
• We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
• He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
• Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
• Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist — running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
.
Notice that the very first bullet point item states that the plane was "fully boarded" (all ticketed passengers had checked-in and been seated). ONLY THEN were the agents approached by UA crew members who needed to be accommodated on the flight.
.
Based on this revelation, it's looking like the problem was not that the flight was "oversold" (which is legal, and a valid reason that passengers can be denied boarding privileges), but rather that UA had a last-minute logistical issue that the gate agents thought they could pass off as an "oversold" flight (sneaky, sneaky). They probably could have gotten away with it too, if the flight hadn't been fully boarded already. After all, how would any passenger know how many tickets were actually sold for the flight before boarding? But again, this trick fails once the flight is already fully boarded, as was the case here. (not just in actuality, but probably legally, as well)
.
UA enumerates very specific reasons why it can remove a passenger in its "Contract of Carriage" (this is "Rule 21- Refusal of Transport https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...Mobil...), and the situation that appears to be in play here (the need to get UA employees to a destination) is not stated in this section of the contract.
.
UA also details its policy for compensating passengers for "involuntary removal from Oversold flights" (as Rule 25 ) but again, this doesn't come into play because A). the flight wasn't "oversold" according to UA's own definition; and B). this rule covers scenarios that occur PRIOR TO BOARDING. As UA states in their own summary of the events, the flight was already "fully boarded."
.
UA appears to be attempting to rest the legitimacy of their action on their claim that the removed customer was "disorderly, offensive, or abusive" because he "he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions" and that he became more "more disruptive and belligerent" as they continued to badger him (even though the crew member's instruction was probably 'get off the plane'; a demand they had no justification for making according to the COC document)
.
Rather than waiting for all of the facts to come in, Munoz is digging the company further into a legal hole by releasing this information which damages the customer's reputation (even if it was only meant for internal consumption, this is being sent to tens of thousands of people). He may be able to pin the actual physical damage on the airport security, and may be able to pass of the buck to United Express/Republic Airlines for the actions of the agents (the actual operators of the flight). But if he continues to paint the customer as the one at fault (when it appears he wasn't) he likely won't be able to escape a lawsuit for defamation."