FT interview CEO United. The crucial difference
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they don't, there has to be valid reason in accordance with the carriage of contract. Tell you what, on your next full flight, if you are even a Captain, why don't just offload a passenger to let your wife onboard. Let's see if there will be no consequences, let's see how fast CX will have you packing...bwahahahaha.
First of all they weren't police! They were security officials. Second of all they are not judges or there to determine the validity of the instructions given by United. They are robots acting on behest of United. So ultimately it's United that is liable.
Instead of going back and forth, just sit back and watch the lawsuit unfold and see if they had the legal right to remove him for any reason.
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/
First of all they weren't police! They were security officials. Second of all they are not judges or there to determine the validity of the instructions given by United. They are robots acting on behest of United. So ultimately it's United that is liable.
Instead of going back and forth, just sit back and watch the lawsuit unfold and see if they had the legal right to remove him for any reason.
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/
I am sure that the airline can offload someone based on that.
yah for fuel uplift due to weather or weight restriction may be that's the kind of operational reasons that's acceptable.... as much as how the green shark fin has gone downhill all these years, i just cannot see Commercial would allow crew ctrl to demand an eviction of a passenger so they can send crew onboard..... if anything, commercial would probably tell flt ops, 'you guys should've told us earlier, so you screw up, you can buy the boys and girls their tickets out of your budget'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
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, united.com, 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.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 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:
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
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, united.com, 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.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).
This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.
Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.
You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.
Last edited by Dragon69; 14th Apr 2017 at 04:50.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me where exactly it says that they have the right to remove you for operational reasons. You don't seem to understand that when you purchase a ticket you enter into an agreement or contract with the airline, and they are legally bound (with certain clauses) to get you to your destination.
This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.
Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.
You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.
This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.
Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.
You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.
I agree it's a stretch, but it could be force majeure, for disturbance, the catch-all clause similar to what CX likes to use with us: 'unforeseen circumstances'.
Note also that it also says; 'but not limited to', leaving them a lot of leeway, which is what you want as an airline.
It may be a pr disaster, but they were within their rights to deplane the pax.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But not limited to" is within the scope of Force Majeur. It is not a Carte Blanche for the airline to do whatever it wants with no legal recourse. Otherwise they would not spend time and effort to outline the rules. They could simply say, "we have the right to refuse a passenger at any time with no reason" PERIOD, But of course that would not be allowed by the authorities.
FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.
Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.
NO they do not have the right to deplane for ANY REASON, and soon you will find out.
Sorry but you are really out to lunch.
FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.
Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Force majeure (/ˌfɔːrs/ fors, /ˌfɔərs mɑːˈʒɜːr/ mah-zhur, or /məˈʒɜːr/ mə-zhur; French pronunciation: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ]) – or vis major (Latin) – meaning "superior force", also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident",[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.
Sorry but you are really out to lunch.
If you call the cops in the US for a passenger problem it should only be when they are a danger or a potential danger to themselves, the flight or other passengers,
Otherwise this is what happens, these cops have two modes, instructions followed or violence (perhaps death) used to achieve instructions.
Many cops relish the opportunity to use force, airport cops are pretty close to the bottom of the barrel in education and training, couldn't be 'real cops' so they're frustrated from sitting around watching TV, playing video games or whatever
This should have been handled entirely within the airline by a gate supervisor, its a disgrace what happened to this passenger.
Otherwise this is what happens, these cops have two modes, instructions followed or violence (perhaps death) used to achieve instructions.
Many cops relish the opportunity to use force, airport cops are pretty close to the bottom of the barrel in education and training, couldn't be 'real cops' so they're frustrated from sitting around watching TV, playing video games or whatever
This should have been handled entirely within the airline by a gate supervisor, its a disgrace what happened to this passenger.
This whole sorry incident smacks of "last minute decision making". The place to deny boarding is at the gate. The crew should have already been on board and sitting in their seats - or the seats blocked off at least. Once passengers are on board it is too late and the crew should have been carried on another aircraft. Why were the crew in the wrong place? That is somebody's fault. Who decided to pick four passengers randomly and tell them to deplane? They nearly got away with it because the other three got off. That is somebody's fault too. This will cost United a huge amount of money in damages and share price. So it should. Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Should the CEO resign? Absolutely!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But not limited to" is within the scope of Force Majeur. It is not a Carte Blanche for the airline to do whatever it wants with no legal recourse. Otherwise they would not spend time and effort to outline the rules. They could simply say, "we have the right to refuse a passenger at any time with no reason" PERIOD, But of course that would not be allowed by the authorities.
FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.
Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.
NO they do not have the right to deplane for ANY REASON, and soon you will find out.
Sorry but you are really out to lunch.
FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.
Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.
NO they do not have the right to deplane for ANY REASON, and soon you will find out.
Sorry but you are really out to lunch.
We're having a discussion here and you're getting all fight or flight on me.
No need to swear or call names.
Back to the discussion:
It says in black and white (your quote, not mine):
"force majeure and other unforseeable conditions"
Unfoseeable conditions as in: gee, the crew can't do their job on the next sector if we don't let them bump some passengers off.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to PX four crew members last minute isn't considered unforeseeable when it relates to Force Majeur, to suggest that in court would be laughable.
Unforseeable would be something like a meteor leaving a big crater on the runway and indefinitely suspending operations.
They can't possibly list every single act of god on the contract and hence the wording of " but not limited to" or "unforeseeable". That clause isn't written to grant United operational flexibility by allowing them to remove passengers from a flight.
Of course any contract is open to interpretation, hence why we have lawyers, judges and courtrooms. But the majority of legal experts are fairly certain that United in this instance is liable and at fault.
You seem to think that because an airline has a carriage of contract that they can do whatever they want.. it's simply not true as they are about to find out, but my guess is that this will be settled out of court with a hefty settlement sum.
Unforseeable would be something like a meteor leaving a big crater on the runway and indefinitely suspending operations.
They can't possibly list every single act of god on the contract and hence the wording of " but not limited to" or "unforeseeable". That clause isn't written to grant United operational flexibility by allowing them to remove passengers from a flight.
Of course any contract is open to interpretation, hence why we have lawyers, judges and courtrooms. But the majority of legal experts are fairly certain that United in this instance is liable and at fault.
You seem to think that because an airline has a carriage of contract that they can do whatever they want.. it's simply not true as they are about to find out, but my guess is that this will be settled out of court with a hefty settlement sum.
Dragon69
With all due respect you, I and probably most of the others on this thread aren't lawyers but the ones I've seen interviewed on TV over the last few days have all agreed that UA were legally entitled to off load the said passenger. How they went about it is where UA are going to find a world of hurt.
With all due respect you, I and probably most of the others on this thread aren't lawyers but the ones I've seen interviewed on TV over the last few days have all agreed that UA were legally entitled to off load the said passenger. How they went about it is where UA are going to find a world of hurt.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Force Majeur
Aside from meteor strikes and God his self making desires directly known, force majeure surely includes bad weather.
I appreciate bad weather is more mundane than a meteor strike, it's also rather more common.
We don't know why they needed to transport crew, but bad weather anywhere on their system could be a valid contracted reason to deplane passengers.
I agree what was written upstream. The method of removal is the issue here, not the fact of removal.
I appreciate bad weather is more mundane than a meteor strike, it's also rather more common.
We don't know why they needed to transport crew, but bad weather anywhere on their system could be a valid contracted reason to deplane passengers.
I agree what was written upstream. The method of removal is the issue here, not the fact of removal.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter if he was belligerent or not , he entered into a contract with united for travel from A to B once he purchased his ticket . Then once seated he had a legal right to that seat . To beat him up and drag him off the aircraft was disgusting and not acceptable . Had united simply kept upping the offer they would soon have found 2 other people willing to give up their seats .
The CEO initially made a half hearted apology to the Dr which he had to reverse a couple of days later , the share price lost $250 million overnight and united has suffered the worst kind of PR nightmare to say nothing of the tens of millions that they will have to pay to this passenger . Personally I don't think that it will get to court because if it goes in front of a jury he will be awarded a lot more money than a confidential settlement .
Had the CEO of united come out immediately and made a heartfelt apology and got ahead of this incident he could have circumvented a lot of the issues he has now . I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down over his handling of this
Co incidentally a family made $11,000 over the weekend by continually accepting compensation for a flight to Florida . I think they got 3 nights in hotels and cash incentives . So had united offered even $5000 someone would have taken it and they would be a lot better off in the long run
The CEO initially made a half hearted apology to the Dr which he had to reverse a couple of days later , the share price lost $250 million overnight and united has suffered the worst kind of PR nightmare to say nothing of the tens of millions that they will have to pay to this passenger . Personally I don't think that it will get to court because if it goes in front of a jury he will be awarded a lot more money than a confidential settlement .
Had the CEO of united come out immediately and made a heartfelt apology and got ahead of this incident he could have circumvented a lot of the issues he has now . I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down over his handling of this
Co incidentally a family made $11,000 over the weekend by continually accepting compensation for a flight to Florida . I think they got 3 nights in hotels and cash incentives . So had united offered even $5000 someone would have taken it and they would be a lot better off in the long run
Might not seem fair or right but currently thats the law.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I predict that united will settle this out if Court for an undisclosed sum which will be many millions .
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I predict that united will settle this out if Court for an undisclosed sum which will be many millions .
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off
What this boils down to is United inviting a police officer to come outside of their jurisdiction to drag an old man off a plane because of a civil contract dispute that the police officer would have had no jurisdiction over even if it was in the terminal building they were actually employed to secure.
Shocking for United and shocking for the City of Chicago.
Thank heavens that due to smartphones and stubborn old men, the world might now be a slightly better place.
Wishing Dr Dao a speedy recovery.
Last edited by pilot9249; 14th Apr 2017 at 18:47.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything you say is true however the contract also says UA has the right to remove any passenger from a plane if they need the seats for other people.
Might not seem fair or right but currently thats the law.
Might not seem fair or right but currently thats the law.
People have naturally assumed for years that this is the case therefore it most be true and the airlines haven't been legally challenged until now. Seems as if my package on FedEx has more rights.
By United's own Carriage of Contract it is clear that they have separate clauses for Denied Boarding and Refusal of Transport. This gentleman had already been issued a ticket and he had already boarded. Therefore everything relating to overbooking and involuntary denial of boarding does not apply.
It will be up to judge/jury to decide if UAL has breached the Carriage of Contract. Like other posters, I also think that this will be settled out of court to prevent a precedent being set, and opening the door to multitude of lawsuits by other passengers.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to calls for the CEO to resign; I think he should actually stay and demonstrate that even people at the top can learn from mistakes by showing some real leadership in sorting this and ensuring the processes are changed/confirmed and subsequently adhered to. This despite his appalling balls up with his first public statement.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad things can happen when someone becomes more interested in preserving their 'authority' rather than solving the problem and task at hand. Humility can be a wonderful quality.
Yes, they have the authority to throw people off the airplane if they want or need to (which is their private property anyway--subject to conditions of carriage and law--which in this case they could). Yes, the cops (or kinda-cops) have the authority to use physical force (level of which depending on the threat) in doing so. But how they do so does matter. The reasons why airlines (and other transport modes) exist in the first place is because people want to go from point A to point B. So the pax are the reason why pilots, f/a's, maintainers, fuelers, schedulers, ground staff, managers, and support staff have a job in the first place. No pax, no airline, no profit, no job.
Plenty of blame to go around. United/Republic for boarding in the first place (and the subsequent decisions they made), pax for not leaving, the City of Chicago's pseudo-cops for dragging an old man around and banging him up.
Good judgment seems harder to come by these days. But good judgment can mean everything in handling even relatively simple situations which can escalate.
It's a PR and litigation nightmare which will cost many times that of a chartered jet for the trip. Everyone gets sued, everyone sues each other, thrown off pax likely gets a hefty settlement from United/Republic and the city. Passenger got banged up, airline and cops get their image badly tarnished, airline and city lose money. People make fun of United on the internet and late night TV. Real losing situation for a lot of people. All over what was a relatively minor incident (made by lower echelon decision makers) escalating.
The lesson learned for me is it's wise to pay for people with good judgment (giving them coherent guidance, training, and leadership for the tasks they might face) and take good care of them because a bad decision in the trenches can cost you a lot of money at the top.
Yes, they have the authority to throw people off the airplane if they want or need to (which is their private property anyway--subject to conditions of carriage and law--which in this case they could). Yes, the cops (or kinda-cops) have the authority to use physical force (level of which depending on the threat) in doing so. But how they do so does matter. The reasons why airlines (and other transport modes) exist in the first place is because people want to go from point A to point B. So the pax are the reason why pilots, f/a's, maintainers, fuelers, schedulers, ground staff, managers, and support staff have a job in the first place. No pax, no airline, no profit, no job.
Plenty of blame to go around. United/Republic for boarding in the first place (and the subsequent decisions they made), pax for not leaving, the City of Chicago's pseudo-cops for dragging an old man around and banging him up.
Good judgment seems harder to come by these days. But good judgment can mean everything in handling even relatively simple situations which can escalate.
It's a PR and litigation nightmare which will cost many times that of a chartered jet for the trip. Everyone gets sued, everyone sues each other, thrown off pax likely gets a hefty settlement from United/Republic and the city. Passenger got banged up, airline and cops get their image badly tarnished, airline and city lose money. People make fun of United on the internet and late night TV. Real losing situation for a lot of people. All over what was a relatively minor incident (made by lower echelon decision makers) escalating.
The lesson learned for me is it's wise to pay for people with good judgment (giving them coherent guidance, training, and leadership for the tasks they might face) and take good care of them because a bad decision in the trenches can cost you a lot of money at the top.
Last edited by Shep69; 15th Apr 2017 at 12:45.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Ex Europe
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having watched the various footage and read or heard the various statements and the three apologies from Munoz
As a regular pax, I have these questions that I would like clarifying please....
When you have bought your ticket and you are sitting in your seat waiting for the doors to close and the crew come over the tannoy asking of anyone would be willing to be bumped for "x, y, z amount" of compensation, you are not obliged to stick up your hand and say "Yes I will" or are you?
If you choose to stay on board and someone...whether cabin crew, cockpit crew or security...pick you out despite you not volunteering, can they legally force you off the plane even if you have said no and you can prove that getting off would cause you more issues than benefits?
If after you have been rugby tackled out of your seat, having said no to being bumped, and you are manhandled off the plane battered and bloodied, is it then correct protocol for the airline CEO to then accuse you of belligerence, accuse you of being a past criminal, drag your name and your family through the mud in order that it looks better that they treated you worse than a piece of meat?
Why would a CEO send a memo to the effect of congratulating the crew on a job well done, then an apology for that memo, then drag the victim's name through the mud and place all the blame on him and then only when the share price nosedives suddenly apologise a third time for the previous 2 apologies and to the victim for the abhorent treatment that he deserved?
I have heard of moving the goalposts but what Munoz said and did and tried to cover his tail not once but 3 times.....I'm sorry but if I was treated like that on a plane where VOLUNTEERS were requested and when none came forward I was summarily beaten up, dragged off the plane, then have my character assassinated....erm...I think I would take that airline to the cleaners and then some
You kind of expect staff and gate staff to try and cover their behinds with "well he was belligerent" etc but not the CEO
United/Republic brought all the problems onto themselves by the way they handled what should have been a simple situation, if a pax says no I cannot go on the later flight then that should be that, asking for volunteers and then beating a bloke up for not volunteering or agreeing to volunteer is bang out of order and for the CEO to then run a smear campaign against the bloke...well Munoz should not be in that job
Mr Dao would be well in his rights to turn this not to just an assault but possibly even racially motivated...afterall, had Mr Dao been any other nationality, would security have dealt with him in the same way?
Why single him out over everyone else on the plane, I cannot believe that he was the only pax to say "no" when asked to volunteer...
As a regular pax, I have these questions that I would like clarifying please....
When you have bought your ticket and you are sitting in your seat waiting for the doors to close and the crew come over the tannoy asking of anyone would be willing to be bumped for "x, y, z amount" of compensation, you are not obliged to stick up your hand and say "Yes I will" or are you?
If you choose to stay on board and someone...whether cabin crew, cockpit crew or security...pick you out despite you not volunteering, can they legally force you off the plane even if you have said no and you can prove that getting off would cause you more issues than benefits?
If after you have been rugby tackled out of your seat, having said no to being bumped, and you are manhandled off the plane battered and bloodied, is it then correct protocol for the airline CEO to then accuse you of belligerence, accuse you of being a past criminal, drag your name and your family through the mud in order that it looks better that they treated you worse than a piece of meat?
Why would a CEO send a memo to the effect of congratulating the crew on a job well done, then an apology for that memo, then drag the victim's name through the mud and place all the blame on him and then only when the share price nosedives suddenly apologise a third time for the previous 2 apologies and to the victim for the abhorent treatment that he deserved?
I have heard of moving the goalposts but what Munoz said and did and tried to cover his tail not once but 3 times.....I'm sorry but if I was treated like that on a plane where VOLUNTEERS were requested and when none came forward I was summarily beaten up, dragged off the plane, then have my character assassinated....erm...I think I would take that airline to the cleaners and then some
You kind of expect staff and gate staff to try and cover their behinds with "well he was belligerent" etc but not the CEO
United/Republic brought all the problems onto themselves by the way they handled what should have been a simple situation, if a pax says no I cannot go on the later flight then that should be that, asking for volunteers and then beating a bloke up for not volunteering or agreeing to volunteer is bang out of order and for the CEO to then run a smear campaign against the bloke...well Munoz should not be in that job
Mr Dao would be well in his rights to turn this not to just an assault but possibly even racially motivated...afterall, had Mr Dao been any other nationality, would security have dealt with him in the same way?
Why single him out over everyone else on the plane, I cannot believe that he was the only pax to say "no" when asked to volunteer...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Ex Europe
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding insult to injury, apparently the airline failed to take off Mr Dao's checked baggage when he was evicted from the plane.....and then when they did take it off, they couriered it to the wrong address too
If it was not so serious it would be laughable that an airline could stuff things up so completely
If it was not so serious it would be laughable that an airline could stuff things up so completely