[edsheeran]

They could have used common sense. Be polite. Raise the ante. Negotiate. There was a manager/person in charge who didn't use common sense and then it escalated to more parties without common sense. Low EQ who only know threat of force and escalation of force.

Our loss of wisdom https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...

[cookiecaper]

There are some counter-intuitive effects of the "common sense" approach. If people know that resisting longer will get them more, they will work to delay the process in an effort to maximize the airline's bid. This will impact schedules and ultimately lead to more hostile deplaning situations as people attempt to hold out for more.

Managers/overseers could intentionally place belligerent people on the plane who refuse to get up for less than $x000, use their authorization to grant the override, and then split the money with the passenger. In practice, the DoT minimum mandate could work as a soft ceiling, but managers may say that they negotiated past it to prevent a hostile situation with bad press like this one.

Consider that most passengers are paying +/- $125 for each flight (a direct round trip is 2 flights, connecting round trip 4 flights, a complete itinerary will usually be in the $300-$500 range depending on the details). Even at $200 the vouchers cost them money. It can have an impact if they start paying out $10k per flight in bumped passenger compensation.

You can argue that they shouldn't oversell, but then they're carrying empty seats from people who miss the flight, which is also a waste of money. Since they're already paying ~4x as much as the customer paid them with an $800 voucher, there's plenty of incentive to fine-tune the overselling algorithm just right and limit the necessity of passenger bumps.

I'm not necessarily saying this approach is worse than their current approach, but I just want to point out that it's not as simple as engaging in an open auction over the seats.

[ubernostrum]

All of your arguments are based on the assumption that an over-capacity situation which is only discovered after boarding is common and easy to manufacture.

Also, remember that the compensation for voluntarily yielding one's seat can be "paid" in non-transferable flight vouchers. Airlines don't issue cash for that, and airline employees already have free-travel privileges. To get the right to cash compensation you need to be involuntarily denied boarding, and IDB "pecking order" is not under the control of the agent at the gate.

[Asooka]

You should optimize and design the system so it works the service of the 90% good-natured, cooperative people, then work to minimize the effect of the bad apples when they occur.

[masondixon]

They offered $800 to get off the flight.

This is what they have to pay by law. Bumping is legal, and must pay if the bump involuntarily.

I don't know how a grown adult can get into the kind of situation where they need to be carried off a plane.

Absolutely ridiculous that anyone thinks the behaviour of the passenger is acceptable in society. And he is a doctor. This is so unprofessional and I would fire the man if he worked for me.

[DanBC]

Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't.

$800 is not "what they have to pay by law"; it's the maximum someone would be able to claim if they had to force the claim. There's nothing stopping the airline offering more.

[masondixon]

> Pre-boarding bumping is legal. There's some discussion about whether post-boarding bumping is legal, with many people saying it isn't.

Honestly, I see no difference regarding the intention of the law. Essentially it is the same. You would only be able to argue that Dr Dao might have thought that once onboard he was not able to be bumped and made arrangements based on not having been bumped. But I don't think this happened in this case.

Yes, you can argue it legalistically, but I don't think Dr Dao was making this argument, nor does it make sense in the spirit of the law.

> $800 is not "what they have to pay by law"; it's the maximum someone would be able to claim if they had to force the claim. There's nothing stopping the airline offering more.

" Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily

For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD."

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

Compensation depends and is customer-specific. So would need to be resolved with the customer - who could always claim the maximum amount or agree to alternate arrangement.

[_-__--____--]

> Essentially it is the same.

This is a very subjective statement.

[masondixon]

What is the difference? One guy got to walk down a corridor and sat down in his seat. The other guy didn't. It is the same.

[DanBC]

That's not how law works, is it?

One woman forgot to pay and walked out the store with an item; another women chose not to pay and walked out the store with an item. In England the second has committed theft, the first hasn't. What's the difference?

[FireBeyond]

> They offered $800 to get off the flight.

Another problem, as (if you had read the article) United is _required_, by the DOT, to offer at least up to $1350. If the passenger can show that United refused to go up to $1350 they are in violation of DOT regulations (and indeed there's video of the gate agent laughing at someone who offered to deplane for $1500, "No, that's not happening. Someone is getting off this plane or it's not going anywhere") - indeed it's a challenge because United doesn't want to compensate more than it has to, but it also has obligations.

[bonzini]

It's not at least up to $1,350. They can offer _as little as_ $1,350 even if the ticket costs more than $1,350/4 = $337.50, but there's no upper limit.

Apparently their policy is to never go above 4x the cost of the ticket (they said it's $800 in this case, your computation in another message said $1030, but airline fares are really complex). That's a valid policy. But they should definitely have offered cash instead of vouchers.

[masondixon]

> But they should definitely have offered cash instead of vouchers.

They are allowed to offer vouchers or free flights.

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

Should the law be different. Maybe. But the law is the law.

[bonzini]

Yes, but only for voluntary bumping. Involuntary bumping requires the airline to pay cash if the passenger insists on that. It seems reasonable to offer cash before moving to involuntary bumping. Anyone who can read would request cash rather than vouchers worth the same $$$ (a $2000 voucher might be different, but they didn't offer that, either).

And even if they didn't, they could have drawn say 10 passengers instead of 4, and given them "a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't" as mentioned in the page you linked, They might very well have found 4 people who would have refused a voucher but would have accepted a $800 check.

Or skip the stupid lottery and go with involuntary bumping of the 4 people who checked in last. Well, pretty much anything but what they did.

[FireBeyond]

> Involuntary bumping requires the airline to pay cash if the passenger insists on that.

Not even "insists on it", they are required to pay cash or check, only, for IDB.

Their "dirty little secret" (which makes it sound 'naughty', as opposed to the more accurate 'illegal') is that for many years they've been offering vouchers in this situation.

And then there's this argument that the gate agent came on to the plane, and asked for volunteers, and then having no/not enough volunteers began involuntarily denying boarding, and the argument is that "having boarded, any removal of a passenger is involuntary, because by definition/law, voluntary denial doesn't involve demanding passengers give up seats after boarding or refusing to fly the aircraft".

[FireBeyond]

"Those travelers who don't get to fly are frequently entitled to denied boarding compensation in the form of a check or cash."

Eh. No. We're talking about the point at which this became Involuntary.

The same site you link to has no mention of vouchers when it's involuntary, which is also the subject of my initial calculation and quote.

As this article, and many others have stated, this is but one of the issues with the handling of this situation, that United (though not the only airline by any means) has been quite happy to perpetuate the myth that airlines "only" have to offer vouchers. They can choose to offer vouchers for voluntary denial.

They are REQUIRED to ONLY offer check or cash for IDB situations.

[logfromblammo]

Point of fact: maximum is now, by my calculation of the numbers, $1450. 14CFR250.5(e) included an inflation factor based on CPI-u, since August 2011.

And that's $1450 cash. If you want to give vouchers, they have to be worth more than the cash equivalent to begin with, and the customer has to give voluntary, informed consent to accept them. No one in their right mind would give expiring travel vouchers value equivalence with the same face value in actual cash.

[masondixon]

> Another problem, as (if you had read the article) United is _required_, by the DOT, to offer at least up to $1350.

"Request for Volunteers

UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate)."

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

The can offer what they like. Once it becomes involuntary, they can still offer whatever they like. But legally the passenger can claim the maximum amount in cash.

The final compensation is also more complicated and depends on the replacement flight, original ticket price, etc.

[FireBeyond]

You know what trumps United's Contract of Carriage?

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

"If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum)."

Refusing to offer any more than $800 is illegal for any passenger who paid more than $200, fees inclusive, for their flight.

Given that the lowest fare currently offered by United for a one way adult fare between Chicago O'Hare (ORD) and Louisville (SDF) is $228.20, with at least $29.32 in fees (not including bags), then United is clearly legally obligated to have offered AT LEAST $1,030 (another example of their sterling customer service, even that would be the absolute minimum legally required and they couldn't even bring themselves to do that).

[masondixon]

> You know what trumps United's Contract of Carriage?

Agree.

> clearly legally obligated to have offered AT LEAST $1,030

Disagree.

It says they can negotiate with the customer:

"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation. DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily. Finally, don't be a "no-show." If you are holding confirmed reservations you don't plan to use, notify the airline. If you don't, they will cancel all onward or return reservations on your trip."

But the customer has the right to ask for the minimum. If the customer agrees to something else, then that is that.

[bkkssnn]

No offense but did you read the article and the referenced texts it's citing?

[masondixon]

Yep. And I am arguing that there is a lot of analysis over something that should not have been a media firestorm, but a simple dispute with an airline that probably happens 1000s of times per day.

Take away the kicking and screaming and you have a standard airline dispute of which you can find thousands.

[muh_gradle]

The kicking and screaming. That's certainly a nice way of putting it.

[chillwaves]

GP is so sympathetic to the airline, it is a caricature of a discussion. Yes, kicking and screaming and let's ignore the material damage and bloody assault to the customer who legally paid for the seat and was forcibly removed.

[masondixon]

Watch the video. He is literally screaming. Why would you refuse an order from the police. I think its an ideological difference, but I can't imagine refusing or resisting police. I think young people today get kicks from refusing authority, but it is simply not rationale.

[_-__--____--]

> there is a lot of analysis

Yes, finally. Airlines should not be allowed to overbook. Period. I'm pretty sure most of the people would be more than happy to pay a little bit extra to have guaranteed seat.

[masondixon]

What's a little bit extra? I don't even pay 30$ to choose my seat.

[alkonaut]

If I understod correctly they offered $0 plus $800 worth of airline credits.