The Doctor May Have Been in the Wrong, but United Still Sucks

United_Passenger_Removed_56101.jpg-6df49_c77-0-4117-2356_s885x516Like most people who do a fair bit of flying, I was pretty appalled yesterday upon reading about United Airlines’ treatment of a passenger, who Sunday night refused to give up his seat to some airline employees from a partner airline, who apparently needed to get to Louisville, KY, and who was forcibly dragged off the plane unconscious and bleeding as a result.

I can’t stand United on a good day. My nickname for that airline is “Ghetto United,” because generally, I’ve had very few experiences that can be classified as “good” with them. So I do try to avoid United as much as possible on any given day.

Sunday’s story, to me, was beyond disgusting, however, that ended up with an unconscious passenger, who had already taken his seat, and who was “randomly” selected to give it up to airline employees. Yes, it was legal for United to do what it did. Ethical? Ehhhh….. I’ll explore that further on this blog. But definitely legal.

Yes, the captain of the flight has the authority to decide to remove someone from a flight for any reason they deem fit.

Yes, the airline was legally entitled to remove him after he absolutely refused to obey the captain’s command.

Overbooking a plane is perfectly legal, and it does provide flexibility to both the airline and the passengers, as well as helps keep prices from skyrocketing.

Yes, United offered compensation. Some reports say $800, and United claims they offered $1000. A sliding scale applies in cases of overbooked flights.

If the airline is able to get you to your final destination within one hour of your original scheduled arrival time, there is no compensation. If you get there between one and two hours after your original arrival time (between one and four hours on international flights), the airline must pay you twice the one-way fare with a $675 maximum. And if you arrive more than two hours late(four hours internationally), the compensation is four times the one-way fare, to a maximum of $1,350.

Was the passenger offered cash? Was he offered a voucher to fly that crappy airline again? I don’t know. I tried to find out the answer, but the Internets failed me today. Maybe someone else will know.

If they offered me cash, provided I didn’t have anywhere important to be that day, I probably would have cheerfully taken it. If they offered me a voucher to subject myself to this nonsense again, I probably would have given them the finger, as the majority of these passengers appeared to have done. Dirty cabins, broken equipment, frequent delays, an appalling lack of service… no thanks. Offering me a “free” trip on that crap airline would have made me even angrier.

I want to be fair to the airline. There are reasons for overbooking, and there are good reasons for removing passengers. According to travel expert Gary Leff, some of these reasons are safety related, and also save passengers money. Leff writes most airlines in North America will oversell (although apparently that didn’t happen in this instance, as this was more a case of needing to get a flight crew to its destination to fly the next day) using historical information to determine how many passengers are likely not to show up for a flight.

Airlines are pretty good at guessing these things, taking data like when the flight is and how far in advance tickets were purchased. And indeed they’re getting better, the rate of denied boardings has been on the decline over the past two decades. (In 2000, 0.21% of passengers were denied boarding (voluntary and involuntary) by the largest US airlines. In 2015, 0.09% were.)

You might think airlines shouldn’t overbook, sell each seat one time. But if that were the case airlines wouldn’t really be able to allow passengers the freedom to switch flights at will either on refundable tickets or merely by paying a change fee. Show up 15 minutes late for the airport, buy a new ticket.

OK, it doesn’t happen often, but it does happen, and it’s inconvenient, and it sucks.

Leff also makes a viable counterpoint to the argument that the airline should have offered even more money to entice passengers to volunteer to give up their seats.

Should the airline have waited or kept upping the ante (let’s pretend there’s no cap, shall we)? I do see the point that this could cause a whole host of cascading consequences that would be bad for other passengers, the airline, and flights in other airports.

Except that the time spent doing this might cause even bigger problems. Or at least it’s reasonable for the airline to think ex ante that it might.

  • Delaying a flight even a little could cause crew to time out and the whole flight to cancel
  • Government may have given the plane a very specific takeoff time (air traffic control) and if they miss their window the flight could be substantially delayed or even cancelled
  • A late flight might cause passengers to misconnect with their next flight and be stranded
  • And late arriving crew would delay other flights
  • Or crew might be required to sleep in the next day to meet legal minimum rest requirements

I get these are all logical reasons, but at the same time, this was detestable behavior by the cops and by the airline alike.

I get it. A group of airline employees needed to be in Louisville the next morning properly rested for a flight. The flight, scores of people on it, and their safety were at stake.

So why is it that this group of four employees was hustled on at the last minute, AFTER the passengers who paid for their seats were already boarded and in place? This was a superb lack of planning on the part of the airline! At the very least, preventing someone from boarding the plane would have been a much easier task than forcibly removing a passenger who was already seated.

As Leff points out, it’s a 4.5 hour trip by car from Chicago to Louisville and a roughly $300 Uber ride. Why weren’t the employees offered an option to spring for a large Uber at the airline’s expense, which would have cost the airline considerably less than $4000 to remove four already-boarded passengers from the plane? They could have rested comfortably in a Suburban, while an Uber driver got them to their destination.

Did the airline provide a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn’t, as required by the Department of Transportation before calling out the jackboots? I realize it would take a bit of time, but could the airline have done more to explain the situation, provide compensation or listen to the passenger’s reasons for not wanting to get off the plane? Obviously the passenger didn’t consider the $800 as adequate compensation. Maybe the doctor had a critical procedure to perform the next day. Maybe there was some other emergency at home. We don’t know what happened prior to the violent incident, but I haven’t seen any eyewitness reports that suggest the airline tried to negotiate or reason with the man. And while it may have taken longer to ensure that he willingly exited the aircraft, I guarantee you the three or more hour delay while they cleaned this man’s blood from the plane was much more egregious!

Yes, the passenger was agitated by the airline’s random selection of him to get booted from the craft. But was cracking his head and bloodying him a proportional response on the part of the cops? Really? Was the guy endangering anyone on the aircraft? Did he deserve to be physically assaulted for demanding that the airline provide the service he had already paid for, especially since he had already boarded the plane?

He wasn’t denied boarding. He was physically removed from a seat for which he had already paid, at a time when he had already boarded and occupied said seat. Was it moral? Was it ethical? Was it legal? The TSA site talks about denied boarding. There was no denied boarding in this case. The passenger had already boarded and occupied his seat, so forcibly removing him – not because he was disruptive or a danger to the flight in any way, but because the airline decided at the last possible minute that employees were more important than paying customers – is a no-go at this station.

Plus, while TSA regulations talk about involuntary bumping in the event the flight was oversold, this doesn’t appear to be the case here. All the passengers who paid for their seats were already in them. The airline at the last minute – after everyone was already seated – decided to forcibly remove passengers from said seats in favor of a partner airline’s employees. This is no longer a matter of “involuntary bumping.” This passenger was denied transport.

United claimed the passenger was getting agitated and unruly, but the removal process began before this. It began when United decided arbitrarily to remove him because they needed the seat. They didn’t remove him for safety reasons – as they are well within their right to do. They tried to remove him because they needed his seat, and he didn’t get upset until after he was ordered to leave the plane. United can claim he was in breach of Rule 21, section A.


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:

  1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

But is that really the case?

The contract clearly states the rules under which it may be considered that the passenger has breached the contract and can be denied transport.

  • Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
  • Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
  • Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
    Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
  • Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
  • Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
    • The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA’s reasonable belief; or
    • Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
  • Safety – 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;
    • Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
    • Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
    • Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
    • Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
      Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
    • Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
    • Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
    • Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
    • Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
    • Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
    • Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website,, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
    • Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
    • Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
    • Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
    • Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
    • Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
    • Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.

I don’t see anything in this contract that warranted removal PRIOR to the decision to remove him. They did not refuse transport for any of the reasons above. They refused transport, because they needed his seat, which is not listed in the contract as reason to deny.

mzl.agdccigfIn other words, something here stinks, and even if the aircraft crew or captain has the right to remove any passenger for any reason (which doesn’t really seem that way, judging from the contract), was this really the right thing to do?

My gut tells me no, and United will not be getting my business again. Ever.

P.S. No, it wasn’t racism, as Dr. Dao claims. The other passengers forced off the plane weren’t Asian. He also isn’t Chinese, as he says in the video when he asks whether they’re booting him because he’s Chinese, but Vietnamese. And he has a sketchy past himself, according to press, having been convicted in 2004 of multiple felony drug charges, including writing fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and trading prescription drugs for sexual acts.

But regardless of Dao’s sketchiness, he was still a human being who was physically assaulted for doing nothing more than refusing to relinquish the seat, for which he paid, and which he occupied at the time.

It’s not OK.



27 responses

  1. My understanding is one of the other three passengers who got off quietly was his wife.


  2. I have sworn an oath never to set foot on a commercial airplane again, since it has become such an epic goat-rope. I never really enjoyed flying anyway (which is ironic as I was 20 years in the Air Force, for chrissake!) but the security theater, the unpleasantness of the experience … the expense and the total awfulness of it all – basically, it’s now Greyhound With Wings. I’ll drive, take the train … anything, other than fly.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yep, if I go, I drive.


  3. They were not in the right, which you finally seem to get when you discuss rule 21. Why pretend they were?
    Also: they could not uber the flight crew because the Union contract precludes ground travel.


    1. Generally, airlines can remove anyone even for being stinky. They can make up a reason and still do it. Question is, whether they should have. And i don’t think so.

      Didn’t know about the ground travel. That said, I can’t believe there were no other options!

      Liked by 1 person

    2. It would have been cheaper to charter a small plane than to remove the passengers.

      But when you’re Giant Airline Corporation and passengers are just an annoyance, I guess you don’t think that way.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. BillyBob Texas | Reply

    Never fly United, again?

    Yes, you will. When it is MORE CONVENIENT or when it is CHEAPER.

    You always do. You may not do it for a while, but you’ll be back…….

    You (they) always are….


    1. Since they’re the government’s contract carrier, my guess is at some point I will be forced to. If I have a choice, no way in hell

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You might get lucky….I’ve flown LOTS of gov’t contracts…..and I didn’t fly for United. I think they spread them around…..probably lowest bidder !! 🙂 🙂

        My point before was that the sheeple WILL go fly on whoever is cheaper – or more convenient, as soon as the situation arises. They are fickle.


        1. Some yes, but many, no. It doesn’t take EVERYONE walking away from them to put them in the gutter, just a number going “Meh, this guy’s $20 more expensive round trip, but I don’t have to put up with United’s crap. Worth the $20.” I have a co-worker who flies regularly and she (Unrelated to this incident but related to the culture of the company that produced the incident) will not fly united unless it’s the ONLY option.


    2. I hit the wall with airline hassle back in 1986, and swore I’d never fly on a commercial airline again.

      I’ve stuck to it so far, even when it resulted in getting the state Labor Board involved when an employer thought they could require me to fly to a tech school instead of drive. (they couldn’t)


    3. No, not true. I had two terrible experiences flying on Delta a decade or so ago and refused to ever fly them again. I never even check their prices because they’re a no-go for me. Once I refuse to deal with a company again, I mean it.


      1. BillyBob Texas | Reply

        You, Sir or Madam, are one in a hunded. Probably one in 10,000, Sheeple are fickle. When faced with identical flights for $100 less on UAL, they will take it. Or faced with a direct flight on United, or a two-stop taking 4 hours more on Delta, they’ll take the non-stop.
        Sheeple. Every time….or perhaps 9,999 to one. Estimating, of course…..


  5. United has a long and dubious record of screwing their customers:

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I love that song. After I heard it, I checked out Dave Carroll as a solo artist and as part of Sons of Maxwell. Excellent music.

      I flew a small regional airline about a year ago and it wasn’t too bad of a experience. Even getting through security here in Des Moines wasn’t that bad. I flew United a lot of years ago and it looks like it’s as bad as it’s ever been. Of course if they had offered me $800 and a hotel room, I’d have bailed my ass out in a minute. One of the advantages of being retired. I don’t know why they didn’t up the ante and keep making the offer to different people. Surely someone could have used the money.

      I think there is going to be a check with a lot of zero’s in the doctors future. Beating him unconscious and dragging him off the plane was just a bit of over kill.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Why blame United (alone) for the beating?

    ‘Twas a cop who did the beating, while other cops stood by and watched a Battery happen.

    Has anyone outed the cop? name, address, phone number? Why isn’t the cop under arrest, and the other two cops on suspension for allowing it to happen?

    WHY DIDN’T THE PASSENGERS STOP THE COPS?…Instead of just filming the beating and subsequent draggging? Why weren’t the cops detained and placed under citizens arrest?

    Once I am given a boarding pass and seated, rule 21 no longer applies, really.
    B at

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All three officers have been put on leave while they investigate.


  7. I now refuse to fly anywhere,for any reason.
    Since I don’t leave the U.S. I’ll take Amtrak or a freakin Greyhound rather than flying.
    That is not going to be an option much longer-as TSA is now conducting searches of bus and train passengers.
    They have been doing this since at least 2014 that I know of.
    Between crappy airlines,and TSA idiocy traveling in the U.S. is becoming something to be dreaded.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Your argument is well thought, and extremely well supported. It is also a balanced presentation.

    But allow me to suggest a counter argument.

    After the emotion of the video, does this not boil down to failure to comply with a lawful order?

    One person thought he was too important to follow the rules. He is a doctor. When that didn’t work, he brought out the race card–even misrepresenting himself, as you point out.

    I also caution that we have not seen the entire exchange. We don’t know–at least I don’t–what led to that point. I have to imagine pulling him off was not their first action.

    I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Perhaps you are correct. But maybe the person brought this on himself.


    1. Well, here’s the thing – and I did consider this – was the order truly lawful? That’s the question I’m asking, because having read the entire contract, it’s not clear to me that it was. The passenger wasn’t denied boarding. He was refused transport after he had already boarded and taken his seat. Refusal of transport is very specific, and that’s why I also listed all the reasons – per the United contract – that they can deny said transport. Judging from these reasons, it’s unclear to me that this was a lawful order in any way. The passenger didn’t violate any of those rules that would have caused said refusal prior to being told he was being ejected, and there’s nothing in that contract that allows United to boot already boarded passengers from the plane.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Wow. Okay. I see.
        Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. (Sorry, I missed that on the first read.)

        That is a great catch. That changes my opinion… at least somewhat.

        I sill have to wonder what led to that point. How did the sky cops originally engage the passenger? What was his reaction?

        What would have been a better way for the passenger to handle it, rather than outright refuse and subsequently get dragged off?

        Assuming for a moment that the order was, in fact, unlawful, would it not have been wise to comply, then challenge it by other means?

        I read a lot, but I don’t think I’ve ever read the legal-speak that we all accept when flying. He probably didn’t either.

        I don’t think he was acting from a position of defending his rights, nor standing upon principle of defying an unlawful order.

        This was not an act of civil disobedience; rather, it was an act of entitlement.

        As I mentioned, your insightful points are well-taken. I am wrestling with the passenger’s “victim-be-me” stance, which seems to be advanced.

        You have not done that. You have put forth a very balanced presentation. Thank you for that.


        1. Thank you for the comments as well. I actually agree with you. I think it may have been wiser for the passenger to comply. Who knows what was going on in his head? Someone told me on social media that the $800 was in vouchers, redeemable in $50 increments. AYFKM?? That’s not even worth it, especially since United sucks as an airline to begin with! But at the same time… dude! Come on. Must you really cause a borderline riot, and then claim discrimination because you’re Chinese (even though he’s not – he’s Vietnamese)? So that’s why I titled the piece the way I did. The cops definitely were in the wrong! I don’t care how much of a douchebag the guy was. Bloodying him, and then dragging him unconscious off the plane is beyond the pale.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Agreed. The situation was handled poorly by all involved.

          Liked by 2 people

  9. It’s been suggested elsewhere that the four employees could have traveled in the crew rest area of the plane. One problem: the Embraer 170 mini-jet (which both American and United use for these short-haul flights) doesn’t have one, as it isn’t designed for long-haul flights.

    At any rate, I travel a lot for work, and was going to give United another go because of their new direct service Tel Aviv-San Francisco. Since my employer allows business class travel for long-haul flights, United A-holes would have made a pretty penny off me: not going to happen now.

    This is another one in the long list of organizations (commercial and otherwise) driven into the ground by management by bean counters who never “worked in the trenches”.


    1. As long as they can find sheep, er, passengers to overbook, they’re never going to change the way they act.

      Even if they completely run off everyone who has the option to tell them to piss off, they’ll still have a core customer base of government and corporate customers who have no choice.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. […] when I wrote yesterday that United Airlines sucks? I wasn’t just saying this because they treated a passenger […]


  11. […] to their credit, learned a big lesson from United’s public affairs fiasco a couple of weeks ago, in which a passenger was dragged bloodied and unconscious off the […]


We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: