[leopoldo]

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

/ :)

[soneil]

I keep seeing $1350 mentioned. It's not a ceiling. $1350 (or 4x the cost of the leg, whichever is lower), is the maximum the airline is legally obligated to offer an involuntary refused-boarding.

They're free to offer $2000, $3000 if they think it's in their best interests (or in this case, cheaper than the inevitable suit). $1350 is just a cap on their legal obligation, not their moral.

[guelo]

Indeed. But I also keep thinking that regulation is broken. It should be just 4x, not 4x with a cap. If you paid $2k for the ticket the cap means the airline can steal from you. I'm sure airline lobbyists influenced that regulation.

[kelnos]

The airline is left to choose who they'll involuntarily bump. Typically someone paying $2k for a ticket is likely in business class, and they'd only ever bump someone from economy.

Note that the monetary compensation is in addition to rebooking the bumped passenger on a later flight, so even if an economy passenger had paid more than $1350 for the ticket initially, they are still getting $1350 in addition to a seat on another flight.

[zerkten]

>> Typically someone paying $2k for a ticket is likely in business class, and they'd only ever bump someone from economy.

That is not true. There are cases of business and first class being bumped (http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united...).

[kelnos]

The guy didn't get bumped; he got moved to a lower class of service. Same rules don't apply there.

Either way, my other point makes this not really matter; the compensation isn't a "refund" for the seat. It's compensation for the inconvenience, and the airline is still required to get you to your destination in addition.

[gambiting]

There was an article here yesterday saying that someone got kicked out of a 1st class seat on United plane(after already being seated) because they had to use a different plane that had fewer 1st class seats than the original plane planned for that flight - so after seating him, they kicked him out for a "higher priority" passenger.

[ghaff]

>If you paid $2k for the ticket the cap means the airline can steal from you.

I don't have a real opinion on what compensation levels should be. (Although there are enough IDB's that the answer is probably "not enough.") However, in addition to the compensation, the airline still has to get you to your destination.

[bpodgursky]

It's in addition to the original ticket price.

[presto8]

I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others: the money from being involuntarily denied boarding (in this case, the $1350 maximum) is cold hard cash. The money they offer to voluntarily give up your seat is vouchers which are only redeemable for travel on the airline and expire after some period (usually 1 year).

The airlines really hate giving up the cold hard cash since it hits their bottom line immediately, whereas the voucher is essentially "free" money.

[mcv]

So even if that rule applied here (which it doesn't), then United would still be in the wrong for not offering up to that limit.

[ScottBurson]

By the point where they were about to have an airport police officer beat the crap out of the passenger (which they did, BTW -- he suffered a concussion and two lost teeth!) it should have become clear that this wasn't going to go well. So once it was clear that Dao wasn't going to leave his seat voluntarily, they should have brought in a higher-up with the authority to offer more compensation to get another volunteer -- or simply pick another person to involuntarily deplane. (They could also have publicly threatened Dao with a civil lawsuit, figuring that even if that didn't change his mind, it would deter the next person they picked from doing the same thing he did.)

[differentView]

Saw on TV news this morning, those weren't even real cops. They were private security hired by United. They were even told to stop wearing jackets that said "POLICE" months ago, but kept wearing them.

[joezydeco]

They were Chicago Department of Aviation police. They're hired by the City Aviation department and usually have police training, but are not allowed to arrest citizens or carry guns (although they have been asking).

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2017/3-Things-to-K...

tldr: They're rent-a-cops hired by the airport, not United.

[15155]

So, it stands to reason they have _zero_ civil immunity, unlike a sworn officer?

[joezydeco]

It does stand to reason.

However, this is Chicago. Locals know to never assume anything about city government because you'll tend to discover the opposite later on.

[neeleshs]

Fascinating. I'm genuinely curious to know some examples of this.

[srtjstjsj]

Why would you assume they aren't sworn officers? They are government employees.

[true_religion]

They're sworn officers acting off duty.

[Animats]

Not necessarily.[1] Also, Illinois law doesn't give local police state-wide jurisdiction. (Some states, including California, do, but Illinois does not.) Unless they're off-duty Chicago cops, they don't have any more authority than ordinary rent-a-cops. They could be charged with assault and battery.

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-united-...

[nikanj]

They don't want to have that higher-up with authority on every airport. The fewer people can dole out compensation, the less compensation you end up paying.

[justinclift]

Doesn't seem to be a policy that's working out well for them though, when factoring in things like this happening.

[FabHK]

If they just picked another passenger, that rewards stubborn unruly behaviour. Next pax would then be well advised also to throw a hissy fit.

[DigitalJack]

The dude was complicit in the clusterfuck. Having seen the video it would surprise me if the man was sober and mentally sound.

The the officers screwed up the extraction, but the guy was ridiculous.

Did he actually believe wailing like a 2 year old and doing his damnedest to hold on to his chair would result in his remaining on the flight?

His face injuries were caused when he finally lost his grip on his seat. The effort of the guy extracting him suddenly had no resistance and the guy sprang out across the aisle and whacked his face hard on the aisle arm rest opposite him.

The whole thing was a shitstorm where mistakes kept compounding, made by both parties.

Of course the whole thing was instigated by united and I firmly believe they were in the wrong, but the passenger was obnoxious and not free of blame.

[victorhooi]

There are professionals that are trained to deal with this situation.

They have both the training, tools and experience to deal with this.

I'm not sure what happened here - apparently the officers were "Chicago Aviation Police" - which is different to the "Chicago Police Department" (i.e. what you and I would know as real police officers). Surely there was somebody they could have escalated to (or simply called in the actual Police Department) if they thought it had to come to this?

[colmvp]

A mentally unstable person decided to go on a police car and start yelling at the police. While up there, she broke the rear windows too. What did the police do? Did they shoot her? Did they taze her? Did they beat her? No. They waited. They waited till she came down from the top of the car at which point they restrained her.

Those police officers deserve praise for defusing the situation without escalating it. And at the same time, it also shows that yes, police can find ways to control situations without resorting to extreme violence. Even in this case on the airplane, I could easily imagine a competent officer saying to United, "is there any way you could convince someone else to give up their seat? Maybe offer more money?"

[srtjstjsj]

They are real police officers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-united-chicago-aviatio...

[jacquesm]

That has to be the most clear case of victim blaming ever. Even United by now has decided that they are at fault and not the passenger. It took a bit of doing to convince them, wonder what it will take for you to be convinced?

[DigitalJack]

All you have to do is watch the video. It is not ambiguous.

[markdown]

> 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.

Delta has just announced they will offer up to 10k for giving up a seat.

[AnimalMuppet]

> OR at least go up to the $1,350 that the regulation stipulates.

IIUC, regulation stipulates $1350 or 4 x the fare, whichever is lower. For Chicago to Louisville, the fare may well have been $200. If so, stopping at $800 was within the regulation.

[patpending]

Are there any lawyers around who can explain the $1350 limit? Some sites like DailyKOS[1] have claimed that the $1350 "limit" has been misinterpreted. What it really means is that $1350 (or four times the fare, whichever is less) is the maximum amount the airlines are required to pay. It does not mean that they cannot pay more, nor that it is illegal for them to do so.

[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/11/1652290/-The-Widely-...

[scott00]

Not a lawyer, but it's really very simple. The law defines the minimum compensation an airline must offer a passenger denied boarding. It does not define a maximum amount. As is generally true for most entities, there is nothing preventing airlines from paying anybody they want as much money as they want, for anything or for nothing. So they are perfectly free to offer more money than that. But in a practical sense, it is ALSO the maximum that any airline will actually offer. Why offer someone $1500 to give up their seat voluntarily when you can boot them involuntarily for $1350? They're not in the airline business out of love, they're going to solve problems for the least amount of money possible. Imagine if Comcast put on your bill "Please pay at least $74.99, or more if you think it's fair." Sure, a few crazy people might send $200 out of their unadulterated love of their cable service, but the vast vast majority of people are gonna send exactly $74.99. It's both the minimum allowed legally, and the maximum expected in practice.

[patpending]

I think I understand. To be fair, I haven't heard United claim that $1350 was the limit, but I've heard people on CNN and elswhere claim that (in effect) the airline's hands were tied and they could not offer more than $1350.

I suppose an excellent reason for an airline to offer more than $1350 would be to avoid losing $1.6 billion off its stock price.

[tyingq]

At the very least, the law is applicable only to "Involuntary Denied Boarding". They can offer whatever they want for volunteers.

[markdown]

Delta has just announced they will pay up to 10k.

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

[bzbarsky]

The _airline's_ hands were not tied. But the hands of the agents on the spot might have been tied, by airline policy. Because said policy may well have said they can't offer more than the required legal thing.

[RyanCavanaugh]

You can read the law and it's quite clear.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2b

Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding.

In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight.

(c) Carriers may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if - (1) The value of the transportation benefit offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

---

There's a section about volunteers, which may be compensated in any amount (literally the phrase "in any amount" appears), and a completely separate section for how much you have to pay people involuntary denied boarding, which specifies something that looks like a fixed amount. And even if you're involuntarily denied boarding, you may accept non-cash compensation that equals or exceeds the statutory minimum.

There is simply no basis for the claim that an airline can't offer more than $1,350 in vouchers during a search for a volunteer. It's plainly refuted by the text of the law.

[jacquesm]

They should get rid of the vouchers / credit options, just cold hard cash on the spot, no 'gotchas' because they'll stand there yelling $800 but when you want to collect they hand you a bunch of monopoly money with all kinds of restrictions.

[aidenn0]

To clarify what jacquesm is talking about (since I've gotten said monopoly money from United when voluntarily being bumped) I ended up with something like 4 $100 vouchers that must be used for a flight within 1 year and cannot be combined for a single flight.

They also said they'd put us on first-class for our flight the next day, but didn't.

So when they say "$400" they really mean 4 $100-off coupons that expire in 1 year.

[georgemcbay]

I am not a lawyer, but the $1350 is like a cap on the 4x amount. If the fare is $200 they must offer up to $800 ($200x4). If the fare is $400, they must offer up to $1350.

$400x4 = $1600, so without that $1350 cap they would have to offer $1600 using the 4x rule, but because that cap exists they can offer just $1350. Basically any fare above $337.5 can be treated as the same amount by the airlines, which is kind of silly since that's a really low fare relative to any kind of average flight cost.

The way people seem to be getting confused is assuming that cap is the maximum they can legally pay.. it isn't, it is the capped minimum they have to pay when following the 4x rule.

[tyingq]

I'd watch this space too. Congress likes to find ways to be heroes during this sort of PR storm. So I bet you see a bill bumping that compensation number up, and maybe making the terms more friendly overall. Who would vote against it?

[RyanCavanaugh]

There is no regulatory cap for voluntary payments. From the law:

> A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2b