[koenigdavidmj]

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.

[tigershark]

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.

[koenigdavidmj]

Flights get canceled entirely for much more mundane reasons, such as storms or maintenance issues. If you truly need to be somewhere tomorrow, you need to plan for those cases, which are quite a bit more frequent than this one.

As for your scenario, ask for a volunteer to get bumped instead, and incentivize them as necessary.

[tigershark]

Ah so now it's up to the passenger to solve the problem for united finding a volunteer. I propose also that you should give them your a*se in case they ask for it. As for the cancellation if instead of the wedding there was a funeral you would ask the deceased to schedule better his own death I guess. It's really astonishing how there are people perfectly willing to give away all their rights while thanking for it with a smile.

[koenigdavidmj]

What we're getting at here is that even after-the-fact remedies in civil court are not a sufficient answer for you, since a large check doesn't get you there in time. Is there anything short of making it a criminal offense for airline personnel not to provide your flight once you're on board (edge cases about misbehavior and canceled flights aside)?

(And yes, the idea that others have the right to compel my labor, on pain of prison, scares me. It also would make me very hesitant to be a pilot and express any concerns about the airworthiness of the plane I'm flying.)

[ubernostrum]

It's interesting that what people really seem to want is a reasonable roll-back of some of the more egregious ways in which this airline and its crew members behaved, but the strawman you're arguing with is a caricature of what would happen if instead crew members were to be treated as egregiously as passengers currently are.

[fredophile]

You're conflating two different things that are legally very different. An airline can involuntarily deny you boarding for any reason as long as they pay the $1250 or 4x. There are also a number of reasons why they are allowed to deny you service at any time, including once you've boarded, with no reimbursement. This includes weather and maintenance issues but does not include bumping passengers to allow staff to take their seats.

[FabHK]

> This includes weather and maintenance issues but does not include bumping passengers to allow staff to take their seats.

I'm astonished at the facility with which this keeps being said.

Why are weather and maintenance (e.g. broken seatbelt) a reasonable excuse to bump someone? Well, because they're unpredictable, unavoidable, and if you didn't bump, the flight could not be safely executed, affecting a planeload of pax (and probably more, due to knock-on effects.)

Now, mechanics flying to AOG (aircraft on ground) have the highest priority on many airlines, and dead-heading crew the second highest. Why? Because if they don't go, you will have to cancel flights affecting plane loads of people (and probably more, due to knock on effects). Now, why do you suddenly and unexpectedly have to position mechanics or deadheading crew? Why, good question - frequently for weather, maintenance, sickness, and any number of similar unpredictable and unavoidable reasons.

The justification to bump pax due to seats required for mechanics or deadheading crew is exactly the same (avoid flight cancellation and inconveniencing planeloads of pax that arose for unforeseen, unpredictable, unavoidable reasons).

[fredophile]

Mechanical issues and weather can happen at any time. It's reasonable to assume you could board a plane and then weather conditions change or a fault is identified. Deadheading crew is predictable and can be planned for. United should have been aware of the need for seats for those crew members and involuntarily denied boarding to enough passengers to accommodate them.

[FabHK]

> Deadheading crew is predictable and can be planned for.

But there can be unexpected need for crew to position due to weather, maintenance, sickness.

[s73ver]

Why should I have to do the airlines work for them?

[cmurf]

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.

[kelnos]

> the assaulter would get their asses kicked. And that's even if they're police, if they have not made an arrest.

I sincerely doubt that. Most people will not voluntarily get mixed up in police violence that isn't directly related to them.

[koenigdavidmj]

Plummer is an Indiana case, not a federal one, and doesn't say what you think it says.

[cmurf]

It has been cited in federal cases, it hasn't been overturned. You're welcome to be more clear about what it says that's incongruent with what I've said, rather than hand waving.