SFO777

A Long Island woman claims she was treated like a criminal and pulled off of a flight just because she wanted to change seats...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/...est-on-flight/

dank0014

Though I don't know the whole story here, and it's not like we're hearing both sides of the story from both the lady and UA, but I tend to agree with UA on these situations.

I appreciate FA's protecting the product/service when an individual isn't entitled to it through either paying or earning the benefit. More importantly, a pilot has all rights to remove any pax from their ship. In this situation, the lady refused and said to do what it takes, and if anything, she should have a lawsuit against the Seattle police vs. UA. UA did nothing wrong, and she is just upset because she made a dumb decision IMO to impact numerous other passengers for her greedy behavior and just not following instructions - the best thing I could tell anyone is to say, sorry, and shut your mouth - resolve the problem later or speak to the captain once the plane has landed - I did this once and sure enough, the captain filed the report and I received a call back the very next morning from someone in Houston to further discuss.

Rebelyell

We certainly don't know the whole story, but the woman claims, and the video would seem to back this up, that after she refused to pay extra to sit in the exit row she moved back to her original seat.

I suppose the real issue is what her behavior was during the period she was away from her assigned seat. But it is possible that the suit has merit; I just don't have enough info.

warehouse341

The article makes her out to be extremely innocent. I am curious what witnesses on the plane will say.

ItsAnAdventure

I find it very odd that if her version of events is true, that she was still arrested after she went back to her seat. Something doesn't add up here.

On a related note, it's too easy to poach E+ pre-take off for people, since they can keep checking the map, and sit themselves down in E+. If it was up to me, I'd make it SOP for Gate Agents to print a chart of open E+ seats (on wide open flights), so as to not encourage the couple of brazen poachers to sit up there.

embarcadero1

I hope she gets the full $5 million. United needs anger management classes.

worldwidedreamer

I'm no UA apologist, but think that this lawsuit sounds frivolous.

raehl311

The airline ... added that balance and weight safety regulations prevent onboard seat changes.

Unless you're willing to pay $109, in which case the math suddenly changes.

I wasn't there, but my suspicion is the PAX got in an unpleasant interaction with an FA, the FA told something to the pilot, and the pilot had PAX removed from the plane.

I'm all for UA not letting people sit in E+ who didn't pay for it, but if they explained the fee to sit there, and the PAX declined and returned to their original seat, and the crew STILL forced the PAX off the plane, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for UA on this one, unless the PAX somehow behaved in a criminal manner in the meantime.

But if the PAX didn't behave in a criminal manner, and ended up spending 3 days in jail because a FA went on a power trip, I would call that actionable.

It really depends on the circumstances, of which none of us have a great idea.

WineCountryUA

Resisting the LEO's may have something to do with the 3 days. The worst UA could have done was have her leave the flight and find alternative travel.

tryathlete

Good god....if the woman moved back to her seat after being busted for attempted E+ poaching, give her a break and get on with it.

Calling the police in for stuff like this is just over the top. She's going to win a settlement in my opinion....especially if this is tried in NY.

I hate seat poachers, but 3 days in jail.....come on.

kettle1

This is a one sided story. Put me on the jury - and I'm with UA at this point, unless the "glove did not fit". Don't be poaching seats. Do what the crew say, without being sassy (nice term for many from the Empire State). If she chose an exit row to poach - the FA was correct. Safety is #1 for the FA's and the airline.

She choose the wrong seat to poach. Perhaps next time a FC seat?

She is from NY, so I am sure she was as polite as a Southern Bell when confronted by the FA. Typical, lawyer up.

Put me on the jury. UA is a guaranteed winner, unless there is more (much more) to this story.

What airline did she fly back to NY? I take it was not UA.

I do not live in NY, but I would be the juror that would say - time served - Zero compensation from UA. Have her pay UA's legal bills.

This is from someone that is not a "new UA" defender. SIMPLE: Don't poach seats, do what the crew ask, sit back and relax in your assigned seat. The days of two classes of service are over. No more just Y or F.

Perhaps I'll move to NY State to be on the jury. If the UA FA was "rude" - chalk that up to the "new UA" and contact the UA customer relations dept. Not a Court of Law. The FA was not rude - they were doing their job!

There is more to this story - and no one knows UA's position. Weight/Balance of the AC (good one UA) and not being advised of the rules for sitting in an exit row stand out. Poaching a seat that costs more money is another (theft).

I'm with UA on this one. I hear SEA has a great jail system (better food than on UA).

3 days in jail has nothing to do with UA. Nothing.

She is suing the wrong people for this.

Why is this case not being tried where she was arrested?

joshwex90

I remember when the story first broke, but don't remember which network carried it. They had interviewed witnesses from the plane who said she stayed in the seat the whole time.
The person across the aisle said she was told she'd need to pay to stay there, and she said something along the lines of "Make me." FAs came for payment much later after reminding her she'd need to pay.

I think part of the 3 days though has to do with the resisting arrest.

And even if UA was completely in the wrong, $5M? I understand a refund of the flights and all expenses plus punitive damages, but that adds up to maybe 5 figures, maybe. 7?!

IceTrojan

Don't forget the IIED placed upon her, as well as a claim loss of consortium for her loved one.

LIH Prem

lol .. ^

garykung

IIED is a state law claim, which has been barred by ADA.