United Airlines Cancels Passenger’s Reservation, Filmed Disagreement

United Airlines

United Airlines has had a tough past couple of months with frequent bad customer service.

There was the ugly incident with the dentist, a scorpion stung a passenger on a flight and a couple flying to their destination was kicked off of a flight.

In the latest incident, a passenger is claiming that his reservation was cancelled by United Airlines for filming a disagreement.

The passenger, Navang Oza was checking in for his flight from New Orleans, home to San Francisco when the situation took place.

A United agent wanted to charge him $300 for his luggage but Oza claimed he paid $125 on the first part of his trip. Oza says that when he couldn’t get an explanation, he decided to film the disagreement.

In a video shared to Twitter, the United Airlines agent can be heard saying ” You do not have my permission to videotape”. It’s actually kind of funny because she then starts to also record him.

Oza says that he didn’t know that she could cancel his reservation just because he started recording. United is now investigating what took place. United even apologized in a statement saying ” The video does not reflect the positive customer experience we strive to offer, and for that we apologize…”

Oza ended up rebooking his flight home on another airline.

While the United Airlines employee does come off as pretty rude, it isn’t clear who was really in the wrong here. The passenger, Oza was questioning an over-sized bag fee which he may have owed.

Find out more from the New York Post here.

(image above: wikicommons)

2 thoughts on “United Airlines Cancels Passenger’s Reservation, Filmed Disagreement

  1. Kevin- I wasn’t under the impression that the guy was drunk. It does seem that anytime now, if you don’t agree with the airline, just record and hope things go crazy. Maybe you’ll have a nice lawsuit…

  2. I think the officer is wrong to state that he is in “public space”. While the airport is open to the public that doesn’t mean it is a public space. It is not a street or park, it is an area with multiple businesses operating along with local, state and federal governmental agencies. The public space would also end at the indication that the customer enters the United Airlines area to conduct business, which obviously this counter would be. If this were a restaurant inside the terminal, this would be more obvious and businesses (and their employees) have the right to impose their restrictions on services. I could go barefoot and shirtless in a park but I can be refused service at a restaurant or store.

    It’s also interesting that the officers escort him off the “public space”… they would not be able to do so legally without arresting him would they? I have the right to stand in a park and unless I break the law I can stay there. It’s also interesting that they send a “drunk” individual to leave the premises and virtually escort him to his car? If he were drunk and hit someone the police would be liable for any damages wouldn’t they? I also think most airports have signs limiting/prohibiting filming or photos for security reasons. While they may rarely be enforced, if there is a sign anywhere in the airport it would override the “right to film anything I want in a public space” argument. Just because it is not enforced does not mean it can not be enforced if needed.

    In searching I also came across this. Even in “public space” we have rights as individuals to NOT be filmed/recorded. If I am filmed by happenstance in the background of a home video, no big deal. If that same video shows me doing something embarrassing, wrong, illegal, etc and the person filming makes it public (such as this) and/or sells it, I have the right to sue because I never signed a release. This employee clearly expressed her right to NOT be filmed and this man violates that right. She is NOT a public official/employee, which may waive those personal rights in those positions.


    BTW – seems drunk. Video only starts AFTER the rest of the encounter which he must have refused to pay at least once… otherwise there would have been no issue to film.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *