> With that said, don't drag people off your flights. No matter what it costs you to get staff where they need to be when you make this mistake, it'll be cheaper than the negative publicity of a physical altercation removing a passenger (even if you need to retask a commuter aircraft just to relocate the crew, or ask another carrier to get them there).
Of course, that just gives a hecker's veto to anyone insubordinate enough to refuse to leave. What they probably should have done was select another passenger, and have police waiting for the recalcitrant passenger at the destination airport: that would satisfy the need to get personnel to their destination and ensure punishment for someone violating his contract and wouldn't cause a scene.
No, what they should have done is exactly what other airlines do when they are overbooked: keep raising the voucher amount until someone volunteers to get off. And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements.
The moment you've escalated to "we've selected people at random, and we are willing to eject people by violence or arrest them on the other end" you've already lost.
No, what they should have done is exactly what other airlines do when they are overbooked: keep raising the voucher amount until someone volunteers to get off.
Or do what European airlines are mandated to do by law:
Offer cash!
I, for one, am absolutely not interested in any vouchers that probably come with a shit ton of fine print, which makes them either unatractive, or impossible to redeem. Or probably both.
It doesn't even have to be bizarre. I've been on flights where the entire flight is going to Mardi Gras, spring break in Daytona, or a cruise; when everyone is expecting to be somewhere, the clearing price can quickly exceed what you'd expect.
> And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements.
I think that randomly selecting passengers is the 'other arrangements' their policy works out.
I agree that they should have increased vouchers past $800, but I disagree that it's guaranteed that there would be enough takers at e.g. $1,000 per, or even $2,000 per.
And I'm shocked at the downvotes: flight crew instructions have the force of Federal law; people who violate Federal law get arrested. The biggest mistake United made here was allowing there to be a disturbance in the first place, which caused a PR disaster. 'Man arrested on landing for refusing to leave plane' is a much better PR situation than 'man dragged bodily from plane.' Granted, 'United pays record-setting $100,000 in vouchers to convince four passengers to give up seats' is probably better PR still.
Honestly, I'm amazed that in a whole plane, no one jumped at $800. I was very, very, happy to take a $1,000 voucher for a flight to China that required me to take an extra flight (Dallas to Chicago then to Beijing as opposed to Dallas to Beijing) -- Then again, perhaps my day is less valuable than others'.
You are not trespassing when you are in an establishment, a venue, or even a plane having bought a valid ticket for said establishment, venue or plane.
Are you sure about that, if they inform you that they're revoking your ticket and telling you to leave? Passengers are required to obey the flight crew at all times.
"Rule 21: Refusal of Transport: 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:"
"H. 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: "
"2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
Or, if not trespassing, would you like "breach of contract" or something? I'm sure they could find something; I'm neither very creative or experienced when it comes to making up criminal charges in order to punish people for interfering with my profit.
What is clear, though, is that he had a right to be on his seat before the whole sorry mess started. They probably could get him for "interfering with a flight crew" or some such crap after they asked him to leave.
While passengers usually do get the short end of the stick (and in the case of United it appears that the stick is always covered in shit, but I digress) I think the situation in Europe is a lot better.
When bumped, or even if you experience extended delays the airline must compensate you in cash. No useless vouchers, which are hard to redeem. There are a few exceptions, were that doesn't apply, namely if delays are beyond their control. Mechanical problems, however, don't count because it's their duty to properly maintain their gear.
Passenger rights within the EU are clearly spelled out and airlines can't subvert them by mealy mouthed "contracts of carriage"
I'd also wager that this wouldn't have escalated to this point virtually anywhere in Europe. Since the "smack him in the face and that'll teach him to comply" philosophy of policing seems much less aparent.
Of course, that just gives a hecker's veto to anyone insubordinate enough to refuse to leave. What they probably should have done was select another passenger, and have police waiting for the recalcitrant passenger at the destination airport: that would satisfy the need to get personnel to their destination and ensure punishment for someone violating his contract and wouldn't cause a scene.