PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Crew travel priority over paying pax?
View Single Post
Old 14th Apr 2017, 00:45
  #67 (permalink)  
Band a Lot
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
Don't drive a BMW but the dealer demands the car back because it has a serious fault that could cause problems for people other than you and the dealer/manufacturer has been instructed to make the modification.


* They can not "demand" and there is no plan to that law in the pipeline!

The government recently informed that it has no proposition to ask vehicle manufacturers to conduct mandatory recalls in case defects are discovered in a model. Currently companies issue voluntary recalls if defects are found; applicable for all manufacturers, if a company believes that there is a manufacturing defect that compromises safety of vehicles, it will voluntarily rectify the problem free of cost to the customer. However, there is no directive for mandatory recalls in such cases.



http://auto.ndtv.com/news/vehicle-recalls-not-mandatory-yet-government-757151

The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.


* Yes but governments air not airlines! and there are restrictions. I know in one state said development must be started within 2 years of acquisition.

The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property.

Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation.

It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.


* The Doctor was not requesting a roast dinner, simply what he had paid for - his flight on said day.

None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded.


* I agree I can see United offloading a passenger during "lift off" on the runway. I assume that this is done by the order of the Captain who is at this stage responsible for all soles and craft.


Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.

If boarding was not complete then there was no reason to off load a boarded passenger. It is also clear that the DH crew seats were not pre-blocked and the flight was not "overbooked". The fact is United needed its crew to get to the destination of that flight, and they believed they had the right to offload passengers to achieve that.

But it appears that from what I have seen, if the passengers have boarded the aircraft they can only be removed if the are "not fit to fly". Once boarded it seems they need to be motivated to leave the aircraft - United seemed to have used the wrong form of motivation in this case.


The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally.

* I maybe wrong but was posted by a few on Pprune that seem to be pilots.

But of course, what would they know???
I was banned from the Rumours and News section of this forum as I stated that the Pilot (PIC) is not ultimately responsible until the aircraft moves under its own power (slightly different in countries) - Several Pilots inc a mod disputed that and said they were "In Command" essentially from start of shift or entry in aircraft.

So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.
Band a Lot is offline