67

I was recently surprised to see a man roughly and forcibly physically removed from an overbooked flight by three police officers because his flight was overbooked. He was reportedly a doctor who needed to see patients the next morning, so he did not really want to get off, justifying the use of force.

I knew that airlines could overbook flights and deny boarding to some passengers, but I thought that kind of boarding denial would happen at the gate and that once folks had been let on, those denied boarding would be those arriving later to the gate.

Why or in what conditions is this kind of forcible removal considered OK?

Clarification following close votes from people who think this question is primarily opinion-based: By "OK" I mean the sense of "legally OK," "officially accepted," "instantiated as policy," "sanctioned by authorities," or "OK according to the regulations and policies and laws and whatever other formal rules govern forced removal from flights due to overbooking." Whether or not you personally consider it socially acceptable does not matter as an answer, unless you have formalized that into a citeable adopted form that governs what happens and want to explain the reasoning behind that rule.

WBT
  • 3,245
  • 5
  • 26
  • 37
  • 4
    Related: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/12905/under-what-situations-can-a-passenger-be-restrained-by-flight-crew and http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/84495/can-you-be-involuntarily-denied-boarding-if-you-already-checked-in-and-already-h – Nate Eldredge Apr 10 '17 at 13:52
  • 25
    It seems to me that if it were a question solely of overbooking, how did the 'extra' person get on the flight in the first place? Seems to require multiple oversights at various stages by the airline. – Jon Custer Apr 10 '17 at 14:02
  • 11
    @MadHatter the additional passengers were last moment airline employees, and the flight had already been delayed on the tarmac, hence why the paying passengers had already boarded. –  Apr 10 '17 at 14:41
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – JonathanReez Apr 10 '17 at 19:15
  • 2
    Unbelievable! Money offered to volunteers usually takes care of the problem. No volunteers? One woman reported she made $11,000 taking the money for her family seats from a planned vacation. She said she is happy and a loyal Delta customer. – Sue Dieringer Apr 11 '17 at 08:31
  • 1
    this is the article Sue Dieringer is talking about: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#30bea7d74de1 – RoflcoptrException Apr 11 '17 at 10:28
  • 1
    @SueDieringer It's worth noting that in the first instance, the author of the article negotiated higher compensation with the airline, a tactic that nobody on the United plane appears to have tried. (Was there even anyone in the cabin who could have engaged in such a negotiation? Would United even countenance a negotiation?) In the second instance, Delta raised their offer to $1300 a seat (to passengers waiting to board) before the author accepted. United, by contrast, decided to bump boarded passengers involuntarily rather than raise their offer over $800. It definitely makes UA look bad. – phoog Apr 11 '17 at 17:49

4 Answers4

19

The relevant legislation very well could be 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants.

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties

From the report we have an eyewitness saying the man got very upset when told he should leave the flight. Perhaps this was interpreted as "intimidating a flight crew member".

Edit: also the contract of carriage has this to say:

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons: ... Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:

Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

Community
  • 1
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – JonathanReez Apr 10 '17 at 19:16
  • 1
    If someone on the flight crew tells you to get off the plane, and you don't, you're interfering with their duty (which is to not allow an overbooked plane to take off). – Andy Apr 10 '17 at 22:05
  • 5
    @Andy I agree completely, however the point is that the airline should have never put the passenger in that position. As it was mentioned, if they had some internal problem which led to them having to remove passengers, they should have used alternatives mentioned above, because customer service and the image of the airline are important. Also, the removal of a passenger by forceful means should only be done by professionals capable of guaranteeing the physical safety of all involved, including themselves and the passenger. – user1997744 Apr 11 '17 at 04:54
  • 5
    Furthermore, in this specific case, the guy had a compelling reason not to leave. He is a Doctor who had to see patients pretty much as soon as he got off the flight. The Doctor requested time to speak to his lawyer to see if he would be legally covered should he not make the flight. – SGR Apr 11 '17 at 10:32
  • 3
    The key point is in the very last sentence: "Passengers who fail to comply with [...] members of the flight crew." A member of the flight crew told him to get off the plane and he refused to comply, and that's already grounds for removal, whatever happens next. – David Richerby Apr 11 '17 at 14:16
  • 4
    @user1997744 The removal was done by professionals: it was the airport security people, not the cabin crew, who removed him from the flight. – David Richerby Apr 11 '17 at 14:17
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby That is my point. He was forcibly removed and he was not trivially injured as can be seen in the video - I think they did not do a good job with the extraction. – user1997744 Apr 11 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby Well that argument does not seem compelling to me. I could force you to do anything;I'll just ask for it, and if you fail to comply I can resort to force. Isn't this how mafia works? – Ant Apr 11 '17 at 14:35
  • 2
    @Ant When you buy a plane ticket, you are entering into a contract with the airline. One of the terms of the contract is that you will comply with the lawful instructions of the aircraft's crew. The mafia doesn't obtain the consent (contractual or otherwise) of its victims. – David Richerby Apr 11 '17 at 14:43
  • 3
    @DavidRicherby Yes that was a hyperbole. The point is that there is a rule that says you can be removed from the plane if you fail to comply to orders given to you or you're being problematic. The justification for removing you then, cannot be "I ordered you to leave, you failed to comply, hence the rule allows me to remove you" because you didn't have any justification to remove him in the first place . Otherwise you may as well throw the rule out and just write "The airline can remove anyone at any time for any reason" – Ant Apr 11 '17 at 14:54
  • 1
    @Ant You asked what the justification was; I told you. This is not a discussion board so I'm not going to enter into a discussion about how airlines should phrase their terms and conditions. – David Richerby Apr 11 '17 at 14:57
  • 2
    This is not the place to complain about airlines or make speculations about their policies. If you want to know whether airlines actually overbook flights intentionally or not, you might be interested in Skeptics - it seems to be a widely held belief and would probably be on-topic there. But arguing about airline practices when you have no idea what you're talking about or if you're right in the comments is completely useless and is only resulting in a lot of irrelevant noise. Please stick to facts that are relevant to the question at hand. – animuson Apr 11 '17 at 15:11
  • 5
    @SGR "the guy had a compelling reason not to leave. He is a Doctor" Doesn't matter; he was asked to leave. – bye Apr 11 '17 at 15:48
  • “UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons” — Well, that doesn’t seem like it’s worth much legally. If you deliberately throw someone out of a plane cruising at 38,000 feet, pleading that you were acting in accordance with your contract won’t do you much good. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 11 '17 at 16:09
  • 2
    @JanusBahsJacquet but your example is trivial. They can reserve the right to throw you off the aircraft at any point, but they can obviously only exercise it at a point when it's legal and safe. The fact that there is a point when it would be otherwise impossible to exercise the right doesn't invalidate the right at points when it is possible. – phoog Apr 11 '17 at 17:53
  • Just to point out, this does not address the forced removal executed by Chicago Aviation Security. Just the reason United called the Police in the first place. – DTRT Apr 11 '17 at 20:38
  • @user1997744 Sometimes things come up. Its unfortunate, but its reality. How they handle their internal things is their own business, and perhaps they don't care about image or good customer service. That's their prerogative. People will respond to that by avoiding their flights. His injuries are ultimately his own fault; he refused to be removed, and they tried to physically remove him. He chose to resist. He could have complied, and did not. If security/police are not qualified to forcefully remove someone, I don't know who is supposed to then. – Andy Apr 11 '17 at 21:50
  • @SGR Ya, the whole "I had patients" is a load of BS. There was not a SINGLE doctor anywhere at the destination that could have seen his patients if it were really that urgent? Nonsense. – Andy Apr 11 '17 at 21:53
  • While it is clear that the reasons given are adequate for involuntary denied boarding, it is not so clear that the need for crew seats is grounds for involuntary deplaning. That is, deplaning this passenger is not an authorized action of the flight crew, any more than telling him to disrobe. See consumer lawyer and amateur mathematician John Banzhaf http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/ – Andrew Lazarus Apr 13 '17 at 22:10
13

I have seen several cases with companies asking 2-3 passengers to get off the flight while they are already at their seat, ready for the take off.

Why is this happening so late and not earlier? Some planes are flying close (short and mid-haul) to the weight limit when they are full. Depending on the number of luggage and number of passengers really getting into the plane, it could end up that a plane is above the limit while if you remove 2 passengers, it is ok. This isn't something they could really have predicted in advance as the luggage is unknown until they are checked in and on the same way, some people check in online but never show up at the gate. So you only really know the total weight once passengers and luggage are in!

Now what are the criteria? First let me tell you that the one being designated by the airline will always find it unfair. And it is! If we are taking the plane on a date, it is usually because we are in some kind of hurry to get to another place. Nobody is taking the plane one week in advance :)

So for the criteria, the focus will first go on people that aren't on a transit flight as the company doesn't want to delay a larger travel. Then, if they need to disembark 2 people, they will check if there are 2 persons traveling together willing to get off the plane (this reduces the potential hotel costs for the airline). They certainly avoid hitting loyal or higher classes travelers. While nobody will explicitly confirm this rule, I have never seen a first class passenger being forced to get off the plane. I am sure there are other written and non written rules but I am not aware of all of these.

And I am not surprised that they call to call some policemen to make it happen. Is it shocking? Certainly! But surprising not really. People being asked to disembark can have all kind of reactions from crying to shouting or even hitting the crew. The police will eventually in this situation...

Laurent
  • 3,205
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • 5
    Wouldn't they typically bump luggage off before passengers? Also, some people do take the plane days in advance, to play tourist before an important appointment. – WBT Apr 10 '17 at 14:14
  • Luggage are coming with the passengers. 4 luggage = 4 passengers. If they need to compensate delayed luggage for 4 passengers, it costs more than 1 passenger with his luggage. – Laurent Apr 10 '17 at 14:17
  • 3
    Airlines compensate for delayed luggage?!? The most I've seen is that they will put it on another flight and if you're lucky, drive it to the place where you're staying. – WBT Apr 10 '17 at 14:18
  • 2
    Yes, for instance, in Europe, you can buy some clothes and what is required for the first few days of your travel and the airline will refund those (there is obviously a capping). – Laurent Apr 10 '17 at 14:20
  • Sorry, I meant shouting :) – Laurent Apr 10 '17 at 14:25
  • 1
    @Laurent "shouting at" is likely the transitive phrasal verb you are looking for. Also, this was a US domestic flight, which somewhat weakens the argument as it applies to this case, but if it applies in Europe you may want to qualify rather than removing content from the answer. – WBT Apr 10 '17 at 14:28
  • you are right :) +1 – Laurent Apr 10 '17 at 14:29
  • 7
    @WBT in this particular instance, the additional passengers were deboarded because four airline employees needed to be boarded at the last moment - that is why they didn't bump luggage or do it earlier. –  Apr 10 '17 at 14:38
  • @Laurent Being to buy clothes or the like when your luggage is delayed is an older rule/practice that's not specific to Europe (I am not completely sure anymore, it might be part of the Montreal or Warsaw conventions). – Relaxed Apr 10 '17 at 15:17
  • @Relaxed indeed. I was once denied a luggage claim for a US flight on the argument that I checked in late. Never mind that the check-in took 15 minutes because of the ground agent's incompetence. Never mind that the luggage was on the first leg of the flight and failed to make it to the second leg of the flight. Fortunately, they agreed to deliver the bag, but surely the denied claim was to protect them from having to reimburse clothing and equipment. – phoog Apr 10 '17 at 15:35
  • What weight limit are you referring to? If its the airplanes designed weight limit then I would be surprised being able to hit it with passengers and luggage alone. As the tanks would be completely full then, running the engines for a while will burn enough fuel to compensate for a few people quicker (remember, you need to get the luggage of for them too, which takes time, so at several thousand pounds of fuel per hour for a whole huge aircraft, in the time you did that, you burned more fuel) – PlasmaHH Apr 11 '17 at 11:33
  • @Moo: it might be relevant to the question ("by what rule or regulation was this done?") to know whether the 4 staff "needed" to board because of a rule or regulation that required them to be on board. – Steve Jessop Apr 11 '17 at 17:09
  • @SteveJessop the need of the aircrew to travel on that flight (by way of minimum rest period regulations for aircrew) is separate to the rules which govern removal of passengers from an aircraft - there is no connection between those regulations, one is done to fulfil an operational requirement which is constrained by different regulations. They were required to be onboard, but they were required to have a minimum rest period at the other end of the flight to operate their own flight the next day. –  Apr 11 '17 at 17:13
  • @Moo: I guess the question is unclear then, since I think that the reason (and related rules) the airline wanted the passenger off the flight at all seems relevant. If not then almost all of the question is completely beside the point, since if we choose to ignore the regulations governing the decision to remove a passenger then the answer to "Why or in what conditions is this kind of forcible removal considered OK?" is of course, "when they're asked to leave and don't go voluntarily". – Steve Jessop Apr 11 '17 at 17:17
  • 1
    @SteveJessop the reason may be relevant, but the regulations behind that reason are unrelated, as the airline could have cancelled the next day flight or planned their employee distribution better... –  Apr 11 '17 at 17:19
  • @Moo: well, if you must put it that way then I think, "because the airline had a regulatory requirement to get 4 employees from A to B before time C" is a different reason from, "because the airline chose to fly the four together as a personal favour to them because they were buddies with each other and the scheduler, instead of splitting them between multiple flights". The questioner appears to me interested in the rules that dictated the whole situation, not just in the rules of engagement once a forced ejection has been decided on. – Steve Jessop Apr 11 '17 at 17:23
  • 1
    @SteveJessop I think its a little more nuanced than that, as we do not know the reasons behind why the non-revving crew were going last minute - an operational cockup has a different weight over a crew replacing another crew due to illness, for example. –  Apr 11 '17 at 17:31
0

I knew that airlines could overbook flights and deny boarding to some passengers, but I thought that kind of boarding denial would happen at the gate and that once folks had been let on, those denied boarding would be those arriving later to the gate.

In the case of the United 3411 incident, this happened because the flight needed the seats for staff members who had to cover an unstaffed flight in a "downline connection".

From Wikipedia: United Express Flight 34111 incident

After passengers were seated in the aircraft, but while the plane was still at the gate, the Republic Airlines flight crew announced that they needed to remove four passengers to accommodate four staff members who had to cover an unstaffed flight at another location. Passengers were initially offered US$400 in vouchers, a hotel stay, and a seat on a plane leaving more than 21 hours later if they voluntarily deplaned. With no volunteers, the offer was increased to $800.

From USA Today, quoting United

“They were considered ‘must-ride’ passengers,” he said. "It was all about repositioning the crew."

Guerin acknowledged the United initially categorized the flight as overbooked as news of the video grew, but is offering the “clarification” now that the company knows more facts about the incident.

So, the answer to your question seems to be that passengers can be removed from the seats if the airline decides that a "must-ride" passenger (such as crew needed for an unstaffed flight) need them.

user69715
  • 345
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
  • The flight was apparently not oversold but became technically over booked once the crew arrived. The terms are not interchangeable often used that way. In this case, the difference is relevant only to why UA had to offload passengers. – DTRT Apr 13 '17 at 20:03
  • yes, and I think that difference is why the OP asked the question. The OP thought "that kind of boarding denial would happen at the gate and that once folks had been let on, those denied boarding would be those arriving later to the gate" . This is not true if the late-arrivals are crewmembers I guess – user69715 Apr 13 '17 at 20:58
-8

Citations on the guidelines for Use of Force by Chicago Aviation Security included below.

In the specific case of UA 3411:

This case has become highly sensationalized with commentary on many otherwise irrelevant aspects. Strip away the hysteria and you have a rather unremarkable law enforcement action. Nearly every other time Police are called, people 'voluntarily' de-board after being asked 'nicely' with no further incident.

The reasons he was removed from the manifest are a completely separate issue/topic/discussion.

What rules govern forced removal from flights [all cases]?

PEACE OFFICER’S USE OF FORCE IN ILLINOIS

Chicago Police Department - General Order G03-02 - Use of Force Guidelines**

The most important point is that the passenger was not removed by United personnel. They would be absolutely forbidden from engaging any passenger like this. Chicago Airport Police/Aviation Security* executed the removal.

Why or in what conditions is this kind of forcible removal considered OK?

The decision to forcibly remove the passenger was made by Chicago Airport Police. United had no role in the actual forced removal. Airport Police were called to deal with a non-compliant (former) passenger. Once he was non-compliant with Police instructions, the Police handled it according to their guidelines. At this point, it is highly unlikely United personnel could have stopped the removal if they wanted to.

* Chicago has a relatively complicated approach to airport policing between the Department of Aviation and Chicago Police Department. I choose to use general terms to not get bogged down in differences of minor consequence.

** For added clarity, Aviation Security may very well have additional guidelines due to their special operational guidelines. For example, unlike most airport policing, they are unarmed.

DTRT
  • 32,698
  • 1
  • 67
  • 111