美聯航「超售」,乘客被強制要求離機

Photo Credit: InSapphoWeTrust @ Flickr

【4.10傍晚Update】今天晚些時候,UA CEO Oscar給全體UA發信了,基本態度是認為UA首先客氣的要求乘客下飛機,然後乘客拒絕並變得情緒激動才不得不請芝加哥航空安全官網幫忙。UA員工按照既有程序處理問題,並沒有錯誤。並表示自己堅定的站在UA員工背後。CEO甚至用了disruptive and belligerent這樣的詞彙形容乘客。


1. 事件簡述

今天有一條新聞應該是在全世界都要炸鍋了:

4月9日,美聯航的UA3411航班,Chicago, IL飛往Louisiville, KY,因為超售需要4位乘客自願下機。一般來說超售自願下機航司都會給予補償,往往都是一定金額的航司代金券,但是今天這個航班的乘客們因為各種原因,沒有人站出來表示要自願放棄,於是UA「隨機挑選」了四位乘客,要求他們離開飛機並給予補償。其中一位亞裔乘客表示自己是醫生需要趕往目的地為病人手術,拒絕下機,隨後UA機組讓機場警察從機艙里強制帶走這位乘客,期間乘客因為爭執而受傷。10分鐘後乘客返回客艙,最終客機延誤了大約2小時。

新聞在英文或者中文網站上都有了,比如大家可以看看BloombergWashingtonPost的報道。此外Twitter等社交網絡上也有很多乘客錄下的現場視頻,比如Twitter用戶@Tyler Bridges拍攝的:

根據UA自己承認,「超售」是因為有4位UA員工需要趕往Lousiville機場執行任務。而不是原本的票賣多了。United的官方Twitter賬號隨後登載了CEO的回應。

但是事情現在已經在網絡上吵得不可開交了,而且輿論基本都是一邊倒:UA顯然是在欺負這個乘客,很多人因此表示要抵制UA。

許多網友還根據此事件製作了很多反對UA的PS圖…不得不感慨人民群眾確實有才啊。

此外還有人對UA選擇離機乘客的標準和流程表示懷疑,根據NYTimes的報道,他們的發言人對此沒有做出明確的回答:

Mr. Hobart would not say whether the bumped passengers were chosen by a computer, human or some combination of the two. But factors can include how long a customer would have to stay at the airport before being rebooked, he said, and the airline looks to avoid separating families or leaving unaccompanied minors.

2. 法律條款

想必大家最想知道的問題是:UA真的有權利這麼做嗎?

根據買票時需要同意的條款和FAA的規定:當一個航班超售時,他們需要尋求自願下飛機的乘客並給予補償。如果人數不足,他們可以自行決定哪些人不能夠乘機前往目的地。

§250.2b   Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding.

(a) In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A 「volunteer」 is a person who responds to the carrier’s request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers’ offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation.

(b) Every carrier shall advise each passenger solicited to volunteer for denied boarding, no later than the time the carrier solicits that passenger to volunteer, whether he or she is in danger of being involuntarily denied boarding and, if so, the compensation the carrier is obligated to pay if the passenger is involuntarily denied boarding. If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules.

(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate air transportation as compensation to volunteers, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions, including but not limited to administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer before the passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed reserved space on the flight in exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation. If the free or reduced rate air transportation is offered orally to potential volunteers, the carrier shall also orally provide a brief description of the material restrictions on that transportation at the same time that the offer is made.

在這次事件中,若 UA 真的是超售了,那麼 UA 確實是遵守了先給予補償的要求。同時在(b)部分也有規定,如果自願下機的人不夠,那麼航司可以根據自己的priority rule來拒絕部分乘客登機。

此外在飛機上,機長也擁有絕對的權利,如果他認為乘客可能對飛行安全有影響,他是有權利要求你下飛機的。比如就此事件而言,如果乘客得知自己必須把位置讓給機組而大吵大鬧,那麼機長可以行使自己的權利「請」他下飛機。可參考UA購票合同第21條:Refusal of Transport。權力是一碼事,行駛權力壞了名聲是另一碼事。但根本問題還是,為何一定要讓這位乘客來讓出他的位置?此外乘客有無違反規定而使得他可以被請下飛機的行為?如果沒有,那麼機組也涉及到濫用權力。

而且,本事件中UA是否真的涉及overbooking其實也有待商榷。已經有律師對此表示質疑:此事並不是嚴格定義的超售。在著名博主 TPG 的文章下,有一位律師 NegativeFeedback 是這樣回復的

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don’t have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it’s airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about “OVERSALES”, specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal– they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you’ve boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn’t have been targeted. He’s going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

3. 一點討論

雖然UA這一次事件雖然法律上是否站得住腳仍然有待討論,但是即使有權利這麼做,當然不代表這麼做就是合理的。其處理超售(尤其是因為機組要乘機而趕走乘客)的態度使得其現在成為千夫所指,也完全是咎由自取,尤其是前一周UA還剛經歷過一場拒絕登機的風波(兩個女孩因為穿leggings被地勤認為不合著裝要求拒絕登機)。

以往類似的事件往往都是因為乘客因為這樣那樣的安全原因而被強制帶離,這一次僅僅是因為UA有員工要趕飛機去另一個機場而強制帶走乘客,也算是大開眼界了…

如果UA願意當場把賠償金進一步提高,或者採取其他方式將4位機組成員送至目的地,而不是呼叫警方採取強制手段,他們也就不會像現在這樣成為眾矢之的了。這個鍋其實UA高層背得冤,也不冤。冤的是當時下指令的並不是他們,應該是當班機組,而不冤的是自己企業文化沒培養好,吃了現在的虧當然得自己背。

現在想來,UA “Fly the Friendly Skies”的廣告詞真是諷刺至極…還是說因為飛機還沒上天,所以就不用be friendly了?


若喜歡本文,別忘了給個五星好評哦!

[Total: 35   Average: 3.5/5]
Disclaimer: The responses below are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved, or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.