USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

[ExXB]

The breakdown appears to have been with the four crew showing up at the gate, unannounced after boarding had started. They should have been told, and UA's internal policies established as, they were "too late" for a flight where denied boarding must be implemented as a result.

Passengers must show up at the gate on time. Yes, I know that "stuff happens" and it probably was outside the crew's control, but having a deadline set out in the manual would have avoided the situation.

West Coast, airlines are not limited in what they can offer a volunteer. The compensation for a denied boarding victim is capped, but only company policy can limit an offer to a volunteer.

[West Coast]

Rob

If that's how you arrive at a conclusion that you wouldn't fly with me, then I honestly feel sorry for you.

[Airbubba]

Does anyone know exactly what became of this passenger? From what I am hearing in the news, it appears he not only re-boarded the aircraft but flew on this flight. Really?

From a post earlier in this busy thread:

Chicago Police Department statement:

"At approximately 6:00 p.m., a 69-year-old male Asian airline passenger become irate after he was asked to disembark from a flight that was oversold. The passenger in question began yelling to voice his displeasure at which point Aviation Police were summoned. Aviation Officers arrived on scene attempted to carry the individual off of the flight when he fell. His head subsequently struck an armrest causing injuries to his face. The man was taken to Lutheran General Hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Ongoing investigation."

[West Coast]

EX

When is UA cutoff time policy? Do you know, you've inferred you do.

[dsc810]

...There's no absolute rights when you're on private property. He could have simply walked off, he made the decision to push to situation as far as he did.

Can I hope that you never visit the UK.
Just for your education in the UK you are wrong. When you are on private property even if you are there uninvited as a trespasser you do indeed have absolute rights.

[Icarus2001]

pseudo coppers acting in a contractual dispute, a civil matter, and therefore none of their business.

Failing to follow cabin crew directions is an offence.

Were they police or not? Jacket said police but I notice one had jeans on.

[West Coast]

Interesting that I've laid out my arguments about the topic, yet I've been disinvited to the UK, told someone wouldn't want to fly on an aircraft I was piloting along with other assorted off topic snarky comments.

All because you simply disagree with a position I hold.

[Non-Driver]

I list that as one example of the general ignorance offered here which is simply representative of the general public and thus the flying population.

The sooner we restrict commercial flying to professionals only (and 10k hour CPL or higher, none of those other aviation professional "imposters") the better....pesky General Public, all they want to do is pay you bucks for a defined service :*

Them Freight Dogs got the right idea yesirreee

[DaveReidUK]

Note, I have seen people get on fully-booked planes who then find that their seat is broken. They have to leave the plane and hope the agent can find someone willing to give up a seat. Being already on the plane means nothing for the process.

True, but completely irrelevant.

[bluesideoops]

It states in his email 'the involuntary denial of boarding process was initiated' and the passengers was 'denied boarding'.....he looked pretty damned 'boarded' sat in his seat when they tried to physically remove him! Catastrophic PR disaster for UA and they are ultimately responsible for overbooking. The good Dr's seat is going to cost UA an awful lot of money in lost bookings, I'll bet money that Dr's seat is going to be the most expensive seat UA has ever sold!

[ExXB]

EX

When is UA cutoff time policy? Do you know, you've inferred you do.

This is what their CoCs say:All Passengers must be present at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled departure.. Now that applies to me and, from my understanding of the words "All" and "Passengers", would apply equally to employees travelling for any reason.

Perhaps they have an internal exception, I don't know if they do, but in the circumstances they should not have declared an overbooking situation after boarding had started.

Any FlightRadar24 experts out there? Is it possible to determine what flight the 4 crewmembers were going for? And did it operate as planned?

[West Coast]

EX

Boarding is initiated prior to the 15 min mark which means people are still showing up when some pax are already seated.

As to your question, APC forums would be a better venue to get that info.

[xyzzy]

I've seen reference on discussions of accidents to "get it in itis" or a similar phrase: pilots who have established a plan to land the plane on this runway on this approach, and become fixated on that task to the exclusion of alternatives (go around, divert) as conditions change.

I suspect that's what happened here. A stressed member of gate staff, confronted by four flightcrew who were claiming rights that they may or may not have had but that the gate staff didn't feel able to gainsay, became focused on "I need four seats, this is one of the seats I need, therefore I need the police" rather than looking at other ways to resolve the situation. Their cognitive fixation was completely "clear seat 26B". That people do unreasonable things to achieve one goal without thinking if changing goal would be better is hardly news, and something that the airline industry of all places should be aware of.

The claims that airlines are limited in what they can offer are nonsense: passengers are limited in what they can claim in compensation for involuntary non-carriage (both in the EU and the US, certainly); notably, they cannot claim consequential loss in the vast majority of such incidents. But if an airline is looking for volunteers, because it's better PR, they can offer whatever they want. They may well have internal policies which limit the discretion of individual staff, but that is their internal issue.

[West Coast]

ZZY

The claims that airlines are limited in what they can offer are nonsense

How does that jive with the Code of Federal regulation below? I may not be tracking what you're trying to express, sorry.


14 CFR 250.5 - Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

[707-348C]

All I can say is that this would never have happened on any aircraft I was in command of. Disgusting behaviour by the airline, the "Law Enforcement Officers", but for me, an absolute dereliction of his responsibilities as the commander of that aircraft.

[Parson]

What a PR disaster. There was significant value in UA getting their staff on that a/craft, ie the cost further down the line of not doing so. Not to mention the incidental 'PR cost'.

Offer an all expenses night in the nearest 5 star (peanuts in comparison) and they would have been scrambling off the a/craft.

[lederhosen]

However you want to spin this, something obviously went very wrong here. An important skill, which is rarely demonstrated by very large companies is fixing problems like this. If I was the responsible person at United I would think, what would Richard Branson or someone like him do in a situation like this? A very public offer of first class round the world tickets might go some way to salvage the public relations disaster. You can argue that legally United are OK, but perception is the basis of true reality. In this case even if the man was unreasonable and it is not absolutely clear that he was, this needs a bit more than an apology and a promise to look in to it.

[xyzzy]

"Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

You see the word "involuntarily", right? That's a rule which applies to "involuntary" denial of boarding. It in no way limits the right of a commercial company to stand at the checkin, or the door, or indeed in the aisle, waving a pile of dollar bills under people's noses asking for volunteers. That regulation, as in the EU, limits the passengers' rights to sue for consequential and punitive damages in the event of refusal of boarding: they just get the defined amount (and no less than the defined amount). It's nothing to do with any deals the airline might care to strike with passengers who volunteer.

An airline can say "we're overbooked, anyone want to get off for a million dollars cash?" without any legal problems. You're trying to claim they are limited in this. You are wrong about this. A passenger who has been _involuntarily_ offloaded cannot sue for a million dollars. You are right about this.

[KelvinD]

Airbubba: I have since discovered that Chicago PD are not quite telling the whole story. After being knocked about and dragged off the aircraft, the passenger ran back on board where he was filmed by a fellow passenger, bleeding profusely from the mouth. The fellow passenger reported that eventually the man was removed from the aircraft, again, but this time on a stretcher.
The sad thing is that, when the airline began asking for volunteers to disembark, this man and his wife had offered to give up their seats. Until United told them they would not be able to fly out of Chicago until 14:30 the following day. That was when the passenger withdrew his offer, saying how he needed to be in Louisville to see patients the next morning.

[CCGE29]

The positioning crew were used the following morning. The first UA (Republic) flight to leave SDF did not depart until 0813 the next day (UA3537 to IAH, N857RW). The aircraft that operated the flight to SDF (N632RW) from ORD the previous evening departed to New York at 0842 (delayed three hours, to allow crew to get there?).

[wiggy]

an absolute dereliction of his responsibilities as the commander of that aircraft.

It shouldn't have got as far as getting law enforcement on board, but I'm again stuggling with the urge some have to string the operating captain up on the evidence so far. He/she may have not handled negotiations well, we don't know, but after that?

As an example I have no idea of UA policies but FWIW elsewhere this could ultimately have been construed as passenger "sit in", in which case following legal request from the captain to the individual to leave if an individual still won't move the local law enforcement agencies have to be involved...and, FWIW there has been at least one instance I know of (this time in the States) of an operating captain being threatened with arrest, when he, having called the authorities to resolve an issue he then attempted further intervention. It's not just a States thing, you'll also be politely but very firmly told to stand aside by police if you need their assistance on the ground in the UK.

Fundamentally on the ground it isn't "Master and Commander" of all we see anymore, if it ever was, so I'd cut the operating captain some slack until we have the full story.

[The Nip]

Even this email is appears to be written poorly. It clearly states;

' We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions'

Was he boarding or boarded?

[Willie Nelson]

When my outfit has been in a similar position once before (once only in my ten years), the ground staff have told me of the problem, so I found out what was on offer from the company and made a call for volunteers from the forward galley, initially there was nobody available so we upped the offer, eventually we got a taker. Simple as that, airline mistake so airline problem to fix.

There was never a discussion of randomly assaulting somebody regardless of what the ticket may or may not say. The law does NOT give any authority to assault somebody in these circumstances.

I suspect the good doctor will be lawyering up as we speak. Perhaps the airline does not endorse this behaviour but there initial statement is not exactly unequivocal in its apology and willingness to rectify what they have done. It smacks of obfuscation and not wanting to concede liability, who could therefore blame the good doctor for now putting his handout.

As rare as these sort of incidents are, they seem to happen an awful lot more in the US than anywhere else, perhaps that's my misperception.

[meadowrun]

It's new world. Airlines run by finance folks, this one came from CSX (who only haul freight), Pepsi, Coke and AT&T. Passengers are just another commodity. Fine aviation background.
For the Chicago cops, seems to be business as usual.

[Blake777]

Sheesh, I laughed when Richard Branson insisted on calling passengers "guests". Not laughing any more.
My non-American brain does not compute using sheer assault against someone who sat in a seat he had paid for and hadn't volunteered to move from. Even if they offered money/compensation, is there something wrong with listening to a reasonable request to continue travel because of compelling circumstances? Even those called for jury duty are offered that decency.
They have just pooed in their own nest for the entire world to see on video. Diplomacy - negotiating rules with practicalities. UA = own goal.

[Curious Pax]

Interesting that I've laid out my arguments about the topic, yet I've been disinvited to the UK, told someone wouldn't want to fly on an aircraft I was piloting along with other assorted off topic snarky comments.

All because you simply disagree with a position I hold.

I wouldn't dream of being snarky. I am merely beyond impressed at the quality of your King Canute impression! :ugh:

[cooperplace]

Failing to follow cabin crew directions is an offence.

Were they police or not? Jacket said police but I notice one had jeans on.

So cabin crew directions have absolute authority? Sir: get down on all fours and bark like a dog! Sir: take your clothes off! The idea that cabin crew have absolute power is absurd. Requests must be reasonable. They must be conveyed in a manner that is proportionate to the circumstances. Don't forget that this stuff gets tested in courts, often presided over by judges who have flown United.

[Thrust Augmentation]

What is all this nonsense about "UA's property" & an unruly passenger that should do as he is told? Bottom line is that he was a paying passenger who entered into a contract when the ticket was purchased & regardless of the small print & irrelevant nonsense the customer should have been given what he had paid for & not assaulted / humiliated in this manner.


The situation is made even worse by the fact that the fact that it was an internal / repositioning requirement that caused this - it's ultimately the customer that operates & funds the operation, not the staff & UA seem to be completely oblivious....

I guess in the same scenario I would have ended up getting a beating as I definitely wouldn't go quietly if I had paid for a ticket to suit my travel arrangements & had it refused for no good reason AFTER BEING SEATED.


There are plenty of obvious reasons as to why passengers may be taken off a flight & also why they should comply with what they are instructed to do by airline staff, but in this case "our plane, our law" has absolutely been abused & gone way to far.


UA deserve every bit of negativity & share price dropping that this sorry affair deals them with.

[sitigeltfel]

"Only last month, trade magazine PRWeek named Mr Munoz as 2017 US Communicator of the Year"Did they open the wrong envelope at the awards ceremony?

[Parson]

Meadowrun,

'Finance folks' also know the value of bad PR. Regardless of whether or not UA were entitled to do what they did, there is a now a youtube clip of a passenger being forcibly removed from one of their aircraft. That will no doubt hit the bottom line and attract the interest of the bean counters.

As noted by others, they now need to engage in a significant 'positive PR' campaign to limit the damage.

[HidekiTojo]

Forget all the politics. This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane. He was dealt with accordingly.

[FlyMD]

An "internet :mad:" seems to be today's only reliable way to make big companies change their behavior. At one point there were lawmakers, whose job is was supposedly to regulate abusive behavior by large corporations. Nowadays said lawmakers are to a few exceptions utterly corrupt and bought off by the same companies.

So, name and shame, expose, sue... Fairness doesn't come into it either: it's a jungle out there and the companies' lawyers will not "fight fair" either...

If it becomes really really expensive to solve this kind of situation, then overbooking practices will diminish or cease. Simples.

[Mark in CA]

Couldn't the airline simply have put the DH crew into a limo and driven them to Louisville? Am I missing something?

[B738bbjsim]

Possibly this one.

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

That's the only legal loophole I can see. But the passenger it appears only failed to comply after being told a computer decided he was to be offloaded. Not to mention minimum force required to meet the objective. As others have said, plenty more ways to have reached that objective. How many were tried before someone "jumped the gun"? Sorry, Chicago airport police don't have guns 😂

[meadowrun]

"Positive PR" . I read that as "positive propaganda" or words are cheap. The are already the over-hyped "the friendly skies".
If procedures that are actually fit for use are not followed all the PR in the universe won't help. However, the notoriously short memory of the public will.

[RevMan2]

It wasn't an overbooked flight.

It was a full and boarded flight that needed to accommodate 4 DH crew.

The operator needed to do the following:

Make an announcement explaining the situation

State clearly that the flight would NOT operate without the DH crew being on board.

Ask for volunteers

If not enough pax step forward, deplane EVERYONE.

Separate the unlucky 4 from the rest of the passengers and board the remainder

End of story

[xyzzy]

"This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane."

The court case, if it comes to that, will be decided on that "reasonable". Is it reasonable for an already embarked passenger to be disembarked because of the failure of an airline to provide necessary transport for its staff, transport that could be provided in a range of other ways? Because if United want to argue in court that you are disruptive the moment you refuse an instruction to leave the plane for the convenience of its staff, and that justifies a beating, then the court hearing is going to be a daily PR disaster for as long as it goes on.

The Chicago Police Department have suspended their employee pending investigation, so they clearly don't have United's confidence in the righteousness of the events. It's going to be very, very interesting to hear precisely what United staff said to the CPD in order to have them come on board, and what account they gave of the passenger's behaviour prior to the arrival of the police. Because if it turns out that they over-egged their account in order to involve the police in what was up to that point a civil issue, a court will regard that as a smoking gun.

[lederhosen]

Good spot sitigeltfel, Munoz is the guy that spent the first months of his stint as CEO on sick leave, right? What was it that Napoleon said, give me lucky generals, when asked what attributes he most valued in his team. Munoz needs to improve his luck. As Parson says, the best way would be to counter the negative PR as quickly as possible rather than engaging in denial that there is a problem, which is what his latest communication sounds like.

[RoyHudd]

HidekiTojo is correct. The passenger became clearly disruptive. So he was dealt with accordingly.

Of course had United devised a practical means of positioning their 4 crew members correctly, the situation would have been avoided.


Unlike United, my damned UK company forces positioning pilots and cabin crew to travel standby even for long haul.

I think I prefer United's system, but without the violence.

[Planemike]

Forget all the politics. This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane. He was dealt with accordingly.


Reasonable request.......I don't think so!! He had a ticket, he had paid United money. In what way disruptive? It was United who were "disruptive", they disrupted their passengers travel plans. Involving security was "overkill". If enough money had been offered, someone would have walked off that aircraft of their own volition.

[whiterock]

Maybe it is worth noting that there is a trend now of appointing business leaders to high office in government. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Also, it seems this was NOT an overbooked flight, simply the seats were needed for crew re-positioning.

[truckflyer]

"This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself"

The phrase "Reasonable Request", are you kidding me?

As for the commander not being able to step out of the cockpit while on the ground, what utter nonsense.

It was the Commanders judgement that set in force all the events that followed later, rather than in connection with the company try to find a solution that would be acceptable for all parts.
Which could have meant more money, or transport the Crew by car etc.

Sure it will blow over for United, but I doubt it will blow over before a nice settlement cheque have been offered.

Also I feel there might be more legal ramifications for airlines in the USA after this, as the contract seems to be fairly unbalanced from a legal perspective, seems very biased towards the company itself.

The fact here is that this flight was not overbooked, it was due to United own internal issues that 4 passengers was forced of, it's looking very expensive for United indeed. :E

[xyzzy]

"If not enough pax step forward, deplane EVERYONE."

You don't think that on a Sunday night that would make the incident that actually took place look like drinks before dinner? Can you imagine the video footage of removing by force a plane-load of passengers, including children, for the convenience of four United employees?

You ask the passengers to deplane. They say, en masse, "**** off". Your move.

Remember, the opening task was to move four staff to a location within driving range: unless the red mist has descended and you've lost sight of your objectives, how does provoking a riot/sit-in to prove your point help? This wasn't about debating the rights and wrongs of the power of airline staff over passengers, this was about providing transport for four people in a reasonable timeframe. Wouldn't a limo, or a NetJet, be less effort than a riot on global TV? The actions of United staff have already made footage of the beating of a passenger a global sensation (it his the 10 o'clock on the BBC, for example, and is now Big In China): imagine what starting a riot on a plane would look like. Why are United staff so keen on "showing who's boss" and less interested in just solving the problem?

[unworry]

It states in his email 'the involuntary denial of boarding process was initiated' and the passengers was 'denied boarding'.....he looked pretty damned 'boarded' sat in his seat when they tried to physically remove him!

There's a few lawyers weighing in now on public forums -- this one caught my eye

Paraphrasing https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

end quote/paraphrase

Just putting it out their for comment

[GrahamO]

To be fair, the flight was no overbooked.


The airline decided to let non-paying individuals onto the aircraft, and remove people who had not only paid, but had been boarded. If it had all been done in the departure lounge as any reasonable organisation would have done, then it would have been all over without much fuss.


But to be clear, the people who were doing the gazumping, were not paying passengers. The airline cannot really use the overbooking excuse really - just one of crass insensitivity, poor planning and a terrible way of handing a self-inflicted problem.

[meadowrun]

employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats


I believe this relates specifically to employees on "stand-by" for carriage and would apply to even those employees travelling on business with confirmed seats. Speaking as one of those types.


Was trying to think of any other business transaction where you could be refused a "product" after you had bought and paid for it and had started to use it (by being seated, awaiting movement to destination).
Can't think of one.

[Nige321]

Internal email to all United employees...

Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I’ve included below a recap from preliminary reports.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you and I want to commend you for continuing to go aboce and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the cor of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

[cooperplace]

It's not entirely clear but was the LEO suspended for giving the good doctor a sound kicking or failing to do a good enough job that the poor chap was able to escape and re-board the aircraft?

the only reason the passenger would have re-boarded is that he was allowed to or directed to! there's no way this passenger would have attempted to sneak on again.

[UnreliableSource]

The correct PR approach would have been a CEO statement like:

"While our staff did follow correct procedures, clearly we initiated a chain of events that resulted in a passenger in our care getting badly injured. All of United is horrified that it turned out this way. That's not what we're about. While I wasn't there, the buck stops with me. This is my problem to fix."

In a crisis you don't deflect; you step forward and take the punches; they stop pretty quickly once people work out you are morally strong enough to willingly take the hits.

[unworry]

I guess they can afford the lawsuit ...

"For the year, United registered $2.3 billion in profit against $36.6 billion in total revenue. In addition, the airline returned $628 million to employees in the form of profit sharing. "
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/united-airlines-beat-q4-earnings-estimates-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

That said, no amount of legal badassery can fix a tarnished reputation. The internet is ablaze with ridiculing memes, so this wont blow over in a day.

[mm_flynn]

ZZY

How does that jive with the Code of Federal regulation below? I may not be tracking what you're trying to express, sorry.

14 CFR 250.5 - Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

West Coast,

Two points,
First the preamble imposes a limited obligation ('shall pay'), not a restriction from action ('shall not offer').
Second, the airline was probably low balling as the required payment was 400% of the fare and in cash. They almost surely had not complied with (c) 1),2),3) at the time of the incident, which are necessary to support the non-cash alternative which was on offer.

Contrary to your view, 250.5 does not impose a limit on what airlines can offer in compensation, only a limit on what they are obliged to offer. Additionally, airlines normally start at below the value specified in 14 CFR 250.5 and try to give people travel vouchers rather than cash - so don't just pay to the 250.5 schedule.

[obwan]

UnreliableSource

In a crisis you don't deflect; you step forward and take the punches;

Unfortunate choice of phrase in this instance methinks

[UnreliableSource]

Over-claim responsibility. Over-state the harm. Defuse the PR situation. Take control of the narrative.

Every large organisation faces screw ups. They are only judged harshly when they react indifferently.

[V12]

I'm voting with my feet....across the concourse to another carrier

[CCGE29]

It doesn't matter if he was a doctor or not. He was still a fare paying passenger.

BBC Business article 'United's PR Disaster'

Not so friendly skies: United Airlines' public relations disaster - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39562182)

[johnjonesnine]

Coming from outside the Airline industry, but with a strong consumer rights background, I am appalled at the treatment of this customer.


It is high time that airlines stopped considering themselves as anything other that a common-or-garden passenger transit service. Imagine if this had been a bus (which effectively it is), or a train, and a paying customer was dragged off the bus to make room for a company employee.


The practice of airlines overselling seats (albeit posters have said that it was not relevant in this instance) is absurd and places profit maximization ahead of consumer rights - it should be outlawed. In any other business you would be arrested if you sold (and took payment for) more stock than you were capable of delivering.


According to this source United Airlines has 728 active aircraft:
United Airlines Fleet | Airfleets aviation (http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/United%20Airlines.htm)


With a fleet of that size moving staff around must be a logistical challenge, but reneging on customer contracts cannot be the answer. A consumer who has bought a ticket, and is not a threat to anyone else, has a right to travel on the flight that s/he has booked and paid for. End of.

[birmingham]

CEO Blames passenger, calls him disruptive and belligerent.

What an idiot!

United CEO Oscar Munoz Calls Passenger "Disruptive and Belligerent" | Fortune.com (http://fortune.com/2017/04/10/united-passenger-dragged/)

His statement is all the worse for having been made after a monumental public relations earthquake, in the cold light of day, by the CEO of a listed company! You couldn't make this up! The passenger may well have been belligerent - I don't know if he was any more than Mr. Munoz does. Belligerent or not he wasn't violent. United made a choice to use physical violence to resolve a commercial dispute. What I do know is that if you are in a hole stop digging!

[robdean]

https://drive.google.com/file/*REDACTED*

Apparently, not currently licensed to practise.

*If* that is the individual involved it appears that they *are* licensed to practice, albeit strictly by way of treating outpatients and within their area of specialism.

Frankly, whether the individual is a superlative doctor, a mediocre doctor, or a circus huckster has very little bearing. If he in fact had no patients to see the following day, it is very likely the information will emerge, but as yet there is no indication of this.

I remain puzzled by this assertion of passengers being selected 'at random', and suggest that the method for such allegedly random selection be explained in detail. 'The computer' is not any kind of explanation: computers do nothing but what they are told to do.

Incidentally, categorisation of a passenger as 'disruptive' is uncontentious if they spontaneously cause trouble during routine operations. But if they are an exemplary passenger until ordered to stand on their head or sing a song or arbitrarily disembark, then I anticipate argument in court as to who in fact initiated the 'disruption', irrespective of the captain's 'absolute discretion'.

[Reverserbucket]

This discussion about him 'trespassing on private property' or that he was in some way a 'mentally suspect individual who was given a choice', surely can't detract from the basic fact that he began his journey as a fare paying United Airlines passenger - a customer, who was quite possibly surprised to learn that the airline with which he had purchased a product could deny him so easily and with no apparent recourse over what appears to have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. What the passenger reports and video appear to show is nothing short of extreme in my opinion and clearly demonstrates the low regard this airline and it's staff have for those who purchase their product. It is completely irrelevant in my view that this was a Republic operated service; it was undoubtedly sold on United paperwork. I do wonder what involvement the flight deck had in this (if any) though. The youth, lack of authority and presence that I have seen in some U.S. regional cockpits perhaps necessitates the use of brutal force by at least three law enforcement officers when challenged by a 69 year old man in a confined space in the presence of similar fare paying passengers, however they got their deadheading crew away and that was what clearly mattered. Reminds me of a non-US colleague who tried to buy a 4-pack of Bud from Walmart. He was only 59 though but very obviously older than 21, so good job they called security when he very gently challenged the checkout supervisor over the validity of his passport as photo ID, as it wasn't on their list. Surely the Captain could/should have intervened at some point from a management or customer care/situation containment perspective?

I have experienced very few bad experiences as an airline passenger however all of them were with United.

[DingerX]

Granting that the person involved is the one named in the documents, and they are authentic, he has a restricted license to practice, under specific terms. So he is a "practicing doctor". No doubt, the settlement he will receive will ease the pain of having those sordid details from his past broadcast around the world, along with assessments of his alleged poker (and, uh, -him) abilities.

United just dealt him a strong hand.

Would this be a fair assessment of how we got here?

1. At gate open, there had one more passenger than seats, so one volunteer got compensation for a later flight.
2. During boarding, the DH crew shows up.
3. Four more volunteers are sought from on board the aircraft. Three accept. Our doctor inquires, but when he finds out that he won't make it to the office the next day, he declines.
4. A "Computer" selects him, and he refuses to surrender his seat.
-antics ensue-

Just out of curiosity, for those of you who work in the US, how often are already-boarded passengers invited to deplane and take a voucher?

As I see it, the fumble came when #3 didn't work. They couldn't get volunteers, so they followed the procedure they always follow at the gate. The problem is, denying boarding looks very different from ejecting boarded passengers. It also works a lot better. In this case, several people were effectively "in charge", and they all played according to a rulebook that was not written for this case.

For those claiming that emptying a plane will cause chaos, might I point out that ORD is a major hub with some degree of redundancy, and that nobody refuses to leave a plane that isn't going to fly for mechanical reasons? Eat a 30-minute delay, declare a mechanical problem, deplane, have the equipment towed to another gate, cull your pax, and get on with it.

[claraball]

As a 777 captain for an Asian airline I can't imagine how the captain allowed this to happen on his aircraft to his passengers. I'm sure United has procedures that guide him or her to stay out of pax issues and that ground staff are in charge until the doors are closed but I can't imagine how he respects himself allowing these thugs to board his ship and abuse a paying customer that pays his salary. I'm thoroughly disgusted and happy I chose not to work for a US airline. The CEO's non apollogy shows the lack of leadership from above and I hope they are raped in the civil courts and I would love the CEO to be forced into resignation. Even if the pax was defiant he is owed a duty of care and he was reasonable in being upset. Disgusting necessary occurrence. It absolutely could never happen on my jet. There are always options to violence when we're not talking about a disruptive pax who groped someone etc. United clearly has no value for it's pax who had trusted it with their care.

[mtogw]

Regardless of who or what the passenger in question is or was or maybe, he has bought and paid for a ticket on this service provided by United.. In this day and age it is unbelievable that airlines are still 'overbooking', we all have to pay for our tickets before we are allowed to board and I can't believe the old system of 'reservation' still exists. As for shifting crews.. then that is down to ops knowing in advance from crewing.. we are talking 4 crew members, maybe 2 flight deck and 2 cabin.. so definitely not a sickness move,, tech maybe.. But at the end of the day United.. and Chicago Police shuld be so ashamed of tthemselves... I do hope he finds a good lawyer.. I hope to hell I never have the opportunity or reason to fly with them.. Bring back Peoples Express !!!

[ExXB]

EX

Boarding is initiated prior to the 15 min mark which means people are still showing up when some pax are already seated.

Yet, you asked me if UA had a policy, I gave you chapter and verse. I'm sorry that you think it's a stupid policy, but isn't that what this thread is all about?

[claraball]

I think the lawyer will find him. Hope he takes the bait and cleans house. I can't stand what's happened to my country in it's lack of reverence for it's citizens.

[dsc810]

According to the Daily Telegraph the leaked justification letter from the CEO has been greeted with ridicule.
United Airlines CEO sends 'painfully tone-deaf' letter praising employees after doctor was forcibly removed from an overbooked plane (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/11/read-united-ceos-painfully-tone-deaf-letter-employees-man-forcibly/)

The BBC in the meantime is asking its audience if any of them have been offered incentives to leave a flight - and if so please contact them to give your story.
United CEO says removed passenger was 'disruptive and belligerent' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39563570)

[Dryce]

According to the Daily Telegraph the leaked justification letter from the CEO has been greeted with ridicule.
United Airlines CEO sends 'painfully tone-deaf' letter praising employees after doctor was forcibly removed from an overbooked plane (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/11/read-united-ceos-painfully-tone-deaf-letter-employees-man-forcibly/)

CEO has kind of missed the point - being 'politely asked' implies that one might 'politely refuse'. Being 'politely instructed' isn't the same as being asked.

[GrahamO]

As an aside, when a passenger leaves the aircraft, voluntarily or involuntarily, I have experienced an 'identify your hand baggage session' with Emirates, where every bag was removed out of the overhead bins and placed in the aisles and people were invited to only put back what was theirs. And this had to be done before the doors were closed.


Putting aside the inherent evacuation issues should something have occurred when all the bags were on the aisle, do the airlines have to ensure that when the person leaves, they don't leave anything behind which could be a problem, and empty the aircraft cabin anyway ?

[DaveReidUK]

Would this be a fair assessment of how we got here?

1. At gate open, there had one more passenger than seats, so one volunteer got compensation for a later flight.
2. During boarding, the DH crew shows up.
3. Four more volunteers are sought from on board the aircraft. Three accept. Our doctor inquires, but when he finds out that he won't make it to the office the next day, he declines.
4. A "Computer" selects him, and he refuses to surrender his seat.

Not that it really matters under the circumstances, but I get the impression from reports that (4) came before (3) in the doctor's case.

In other words, he (and his wife) were randomly selected for offloading, agreed initially to accept compensation, but then changed their minds when they learned that they were going to be rebooked on a flight almost 24 hours later.

Of course it's possible that he volunteered, changed his mind and then was "randomly" selected for IDB - but that would be a bit too much of a coincidence.

[Dryce]

Regardless of who or what the passenger in question is or was or maybe, he has bought and paid for a ticket on this service provided by United.. In this day and age it is unbelievable that airlines are still 'overbooking', we all have to pay for our tickets before we are allowed to board and I can't believe the old system of 'reservation' still exists.

Airlines like UA have to deal with the ebbs and flows missed connecting flights and they may choose to sell flexible tickets at a premium.

And of course yield management still adds its own logic.

[HEMS driver]

Two years ago I did 14 sectors from Australia and around the US, then home. My wife and I experienced some of the rudest treatment that I've ever had from your TSA agents. Also some of the best. Can anyone from the USA explain to me why your agents have to stand in front of a person and scream. Do you suffer from the well known syndrome of screaming louder if you don't think that the person that you are talking to has a different language? Why with a B737 load of pax were only non US citizens treated this way?

TSA does not require even a high school diploma for their screeners, nor a GED (high school equivalency test) certificate, as this can be waived.

It wasn't too many years ago that a TSA screener in Phoenix seized a Medal of Honor from a WWII hero - General Joe Foss - because he thought it could be used as a weapon. These are the people we all have to deal with while going through security.

[birmingham]

What a lot of this debate highlights is just how enured people have become to airline "security" and how institutionalised some insiders are. When all is said and done the only justification for offering violence to a non-violent, perhaps difficult, even belligerent, individual is when the security of the aircraft, or the safety of others is compromised - period.

This was a commercial issue people.

The response of the United CEO is frankly breathtaking!

What was he thinking?

[HEMS driver]

Even this email is appears to be written poorly. It clearly states;

' We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions'

Was he boarding or boarded?

This is the point that I made earlier. The CoC states that UAL can "deny boarding," but this passenger had already boarded. Oh, those pesky little words in the fine print.

Oh, and the flight wasn't "overbooked." Those four employees weren't paying passengers, and thus weren't "booked" on the flight.

UAL is spinning this, and if the media would do their jobs, they would read the CoC and not take United's word for it.

In all fairness to the Chicago Police Department, these cops work for the Chicago Airport Police Department - a different agency.

[ZFT]

What a lot of this debate highlights is just how enured people have become to airline "security" and how institutionalised some insiders are. When all is said and done the only justification for offering violence to a non-violent, perhaps difficult, even belligerent, individual is when the security of the aircraft, or the safety of others is compromised - period.

This was a commercial issue people.

The response of the United CEO is frankly breathtaking!

I am still amazed that anyone, and there are many here who are, can justify violence against a 69 year old man. (Nothing to with him being non Caucasian I'm sure, just luck of the UAL random draw).

I'm not far behind him in age. Do I need to take up self defense classes before boarding UAL because I can guarantee I also would not blindly accept the same treatment from uniformed morons (wearing jeans!!!) either?

[OldCessna]

Several problems for UA and the Police
1. Flight was not oversold. UA need space for 4 crew members to reposition
2. Pax was only belligerent because his seat was being taken away from him
3. Police had no power of arrest for removing a pax to make space
4. Police used excessive force

I would expect UA stock to take a dive when then market opens this morning

[HEMS driver]

What a lot of this debate highlights is just how enured people have become to airline "security" and how institutionalised some insiders are. When all is said and done the only justification for offering violence to a non-violent, perhaps difficult, even belligerent, individual is when the security of the aircraft, or the safety of others is compromised - period.

This was a commercial issue people.

The response of the United CEO is frankly breathtaking!

What was he thinking?

Exactly. There are some posters here who subscribe to the "this is the way we have always done it." :=

[birmingham]

Ironically does show how use of cell 'phones on aircraft can contribute to passenger safety!

[Super VC-10]

United?s stock is set to fall 2% and wipe $500 million off the airline?s market cap - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11)

[maxred]

The response of the United CEO is frankly breathtaking!


Straight from the Harvard Business School, now, let's make a bad situation.......worse. Maybe tells you a lot about the kulture

[Super VC-10]

Take a look at Twitter using the hashtags #United, #Flight3411 and #BoycottUnitedAirlines:D

[flight_mode]

United?s stock is set to fall 2% and wipe $500 million off the airline?s market cap - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11)
Early days but their stock is down 3.5% at the moment. Of course share prices go up and down all the time a bit like passengers faces into armrests.

[Piltdown Man]

We are a few facts short here.

The over booking/boarding issue is one of them. Are you boarded when you pass the last gate, when you first touch the aircraft, cross its threshold or when your bum hits the seat. An airline might argue its when the aircraft departs with you. Overbooking - the seats available for sale does not equal the number of passengers that can be carried. There are many reasons for this an one of them is carrying crew. Deadheading crew reduce the number of seats available for sale and thus turn a fully booked aircraft into an over booked one.

Deadheading Crew do not pitch up at the gate and demand to fly on a whim. They are told by their Crewing Dept. to go to XYZ and the system has to deal with it.

Regarding who gets select to be offloaded; this is often done by algorithms in a booking system. Those considered to be of a lower commercial value with an airline will be chosen. Very harsh if you are chosen. Deadheading crew have the second highest priority on flights, the highest goes to engineers with tools traveling to fix broken aircraft. They will always be a carried, no matter what argument is put forward.

We don't have a clue what was said by whom and when. We do know this particular passenger has a strange reaction to stress. If this guy is a surgeon I hope he doesn't suffer with episodes such as this with an patient open on the table in front of him.

The customer service game is lost as soon as law enforcement officers show up. The deal with what they see in front of them and act accordingly.

Social media is not always fair. Clips, whilst accurate, may be taken out of context and be lacking the less newsworthy or story undermining build-up. Furthermore, to say a thing is right or wrong does not depend on onlookers shouting and screaming, it depends on the facts. But you can't delete posted social media. It's there forever (United breaks guitars). So even if you are right, your story may not be heard because social media will unfairly shout louder.

What was clear is that UA didn't allow an auction to take place. They relied on their CofC to give them a "legal" right to deny boarding. UA and every other airline might want to review their policies as every now and again a passenger unable to control themselves may be chosen and in return give you a very expensive PR headache.

[Less Hair]

When you pass the checkpoint at the gate your ticket becomes legally activated/used and you are boarded.

[grizzled]

At 10am Eastern UAL stock was down 4.1%. Just for perspective, if it drops 4.4% that's 1 BILLION USD less market value of the company than yesterday.

[unworry]

United resurrected its "Fly the Friendly Skies" slogan in September 2013

It seems they make no promises when you're on the ground

[HEMS driver]

United will throw the Chicago Airport Police under the bus in 5, 4, 3, 2...

[Piltdown Man]

I don't agree with you Less Hair. Your ticket, if you have one, is just a voucher or receipt that shows you have paid for a service and it remains valid until you have received the service you have paid for, provided all conditions etc. have been met. A reasonable person may consider the gate, but what if there isn't one, or the systems fail, or the flight returns etc.

[PDR1]

What was clear is that UA didn't allow an auction to take place. They relied on their CofC to give them a "legal" right to deny boarding.

Not sure about that. One "clarification" elsewhere on here says that five DH crew arrived at the gate and they DID offer an auction (on the plane, after boarding).

But as already covered (at length) previously in this thread neither the Title 14 regs nor the UA CoC gave them any rights in this case. Under the Title 14 regs DH crew needs don't qualify as "overselling" unless the seats had been boioked & confirmed in advance (which they hadn't, because the DH crew was only needed to cover delayed flights downroute). The UA CoC gives them no right to deny boarding to Pax that are already boarded.

If you want to try and convince a judge that a passenger who is on plane and buckled into his seat isn't yet "boarded" then go ahead and give it your best shot!

[Piltdown Man]

Advance of when? Close of flight, departure, close of check-in?

[HEMS driver]

Granting that the person involved is the one named in the documents, and they are authentic, he has a restricted license to practice, under specific terms. So he is a "practicing doctor". No doubt, the settlement he will receive will ease the pain of having those sordid details from his past broadcast around the world, along with assessments of his alleged poker (and, uh, -him) abilities.

United just dealt him a strong hand.

Would this be a fair assessment of how we got here?

1. At gate open, there had one more passenger than seats, so one volunteer got compensation for a later flight.
2. During boarding, the DH crew shows up.
3. Four more volunteers are sought from on board the aircraft. Three accept. Our doctor inquires, but when he finds out that he won't make it to the office the next day, he declines.
4. A "Computer" selects him, and he refuses to surrender his seat.
-antics ensue-

Just out of curiosity, for those of you who work in the US, how often are already-boarded passengers invited to deplane and take a voucher?

As I see it, the fumble came when #3 didn't work. They couldn't get volunteers, so they followed the procedure they always follow at the gate. The problem is, denying boarding looks very different from ejecting boarded passengers. It also works a lot better. In this case, several people were effectively "in charge", and they all played according to a rulebook that was not written for this case.

For those claiming that emptying a plane will cause chaos, might I point out that ORD is a major hub with some degree of redundancy, and that nobody refuses to leave a plane that isn't going to fly for mechanical reasons? Eat a 30-minute delay, declare a mechanical problem, deplane, have the equipment towed to another gate, cull your pax, and get on with it.

Great analysis! Spot on! :D

[Sober Lark]

I saw an example of how to make a customer become "disruptive and belligerent".

[Super VC-10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_3411

[barit1]

Thoughts come to mind:

1) Boarding completed

2) Crew rostering wakes up to the fact they are short-staffed at SDF.

3) Let's make fools of ourselves by trying to entice boarded pax off the fully-boarded flight, to make room for the deadheading crew that we had overlooked until now.

4) Bidding for vacated seats fails. (Everyone has his price, but we haven't gotten there . . .)

5) Call in the enforcers. Mess up our corporate PR.

[Piltdown Man]

I've checked another operator's Conditions of Carriage. It makes no mention of when a passenger is boarded but Denial of Boarding is a term used by airlines to refuse a passenger travel. There are no time limits, for example, a passenger can pass the gate and be refused at the aircraft. They can be sat down and offloaded. A real buggers muddle and it appears, very expensive.

[PDR1]

Advance of when? Close of flight, departure, close of check-in?


Well it would sure as heck be before the passengers were belted into their seats...

[barit1]

There are plenty of charter operators in ORD and environs. A chartered twin to transport deadheading crew to SDF would be a LOT cheaper than all the adverse publicity!

[PDR1]

...and the availability of alternative transport for the aircrew is almost certainly going to make it worse in the eyes of a court...

[Just another SLF]

Just a paying customer, albeit one with quite a lot of Customer Service background, and I'm frankly astonished at some of the attempted explanations / justifications for UAs actions here.

They messed up, then messed up some more. Then their CEO opened his mouth and made it worse. The he opened it again and made it much, much worse. He's slowly moving this from an embarrassment, to a crisis, to something that puts his job at risk to something that could put the whole airline at risk.

This should be really simple. You're a commercial organisation. Your customers come first. Especially when they're already sitting on the aircraft. If you discover that you have to move some of your own staff around, that's not your customers' problem, it's yours. Sure, offer a bribe to see if it will solve your problem, but if they won't bite, you have to sort it out yourself.

Your need to get your staff somewhere does not outweigh your customers' needs to get somewhere.

If you, as a provider of a customer service, think that you have the right to mandatorily - or even forcibly - remove a customer from a plane in these circumstances, you need to take a good hard look at yourself. Because you don't.

Oh, your CofC may say that you do, but who cares. We all know that CofCs are there for the sole purpose of limiting your liability in the event of a problem. No-one reads them because there's no point. What's going to happen if I decline the Terms? You won't sell me a seat. I need to travel, so I have no option but to accept.

Same with nuances about legalities of the point of "boarding" or rights of the Commander. Very interesting to the lawyers I suppose, but of no interest to the public.

What we see is a man being physically dragged from his seat because UA's desire to move some staff around was more important to them than the people who'd paid good money to use their "service". Then we hear the CEO complain that the poor chap became "disruptive" after being asked to "voluntarily" leave the plane.

That's what we base out judgement on. A company that's disappeared so far up its own backside that it's forgotten that it exists only because people being willing to give it their business. Treat people with such disdain and contempt you simply don't deserve to exist.

[aox]

There are plenty of charter operators in ORD and environs. A chartered twin to transport deadheading crew to SDF would be a LOT cheaper than all the adverse publicity!

It might even be not much more expensive than 4 x $800

[albatross]

A friend came out with a funny comment regarding these unfortunate events. (He travels a lot. )
"Why am I paying full fare...if, in reality, I am actually "standby" at all times?"

[Gauges and Dials]

Rather be flying

You do know that Airlines can't simply offer whatever they want, or whatever a pax wants?

What specifically prevents an airline from offering whatever it wants to offer?

[JumpJumpJump]

https://www.facebook.com/tickld/videos/1455247751208371/

Is the just kill me part real??? This just gets worse and worse

[Gauges and Dials]

Old Cart
There's idiotic suggestions that many thousands of dollars be offered to the pax when that in of itself is against the law.

You keep asserting this but you offer no evidence.

[WHBM]

Lots of chat. Quite simply, Munoz should resign over his comments. And if he won't, the board of directors should dismiss him.

[Gauges and Dials]

Failing to follow cabin crew directions is an offence.



Failing to follow legitimate cabin crew directions is an offence.

If a cabin crew member orders you to take off your clothes and bend over, you're under no obligation to comply.

[HEMS driver]

What specifically prevents an airline from offering whatever it wants to offer?

There isn't. There is a maximum that can be required to be offered, but they obviously can offer anything they want. Lots of kool-aide drinkers on here.

[HEMS driver]

There are plenty of charter operators in ORD and environs. A chartered twin to transport deadheading crew to SDF would be a LOT cheaper than all the adverse publicity!

True, and IIRC Munoz commutes to/from corporate headquarters and his beach-front McMansion in NE Florida (Ponte Vedra Beach) by........wait for it........private jet.

If this doesn't go away, my prediction is that the board will ask Munoz to leave, along with a $10,000,000+ golden parachute.

[Turbine D]

Forgetting all the legalistics, this whole episode, the way it is unfolding, is the result of two intelligence failures:
- The first was an artificial intelligence failure of a computer selecting the human victims.
- The second was a human intelligence failure, sending out a Tweet message to the general public and then following it up by sending out a written but different internal message that in essence blamed the customer, based on only half the information in hand.

I suppose that Mr. Munzo in a panic of what to say, what to say moment, relapsed back to his previous CEO experiences at CSX, a freight hauling company at the time he composed the internal letter. He did get one item right, "There are lessons to be learned." (all the way from the top to the floor at UAL)

[Right Way Up]

Whether UAL or the PD believe they were right it is irrelevant .....most of the World disagree.

This really is the time to go into PR overdrive and admit you were wrong and try to defuse the situation.

[Methersgate]

This is going to be a Harvard Business School Case Study.

And not in a good way.

[DaveReidUK]

...and the availability of alternative transport for the aircrew is almost certainly going to make it worse in the eyes of a court...

Ordinarily, something like this would never see the inside of a courtroom, the parties involved having reached a sensible (and cheaper) out-of-court settlement.

But when one of those parties (who should know better) clearly subscribes to the "when you're in a hole, keep digging" philosophy, this one could go all the way ...

[slats11]

Going to be lots of zeroes on that check

[G-CPTN]

Did the relief crew reach their destination in time?

[Wannabe Flyer]

Hearing this comment I have this vision of a Slot machine style compiter near every boarding gate where the one armed bandit is pulled to randomly spit out seat numbers!!!

Seriously do reservation/gate computers have an option built into them like an app for such a random draw? Suspect the lawyers will have a field day discovering that!

[locblue]

We are a few facts short here.

The over booking/boarding issue is one of them. Are you boarded when you pass the last gate, when you first touch the aircraft, cross its threshold or when your bum hits the seat. An airline might argue its when the aircraft departs with you. Overbooking - the seats available for sale does not equal the number of passengers that can be carried. There are many reasons for this an one of them is carrying crew. Deadheading crew reduce the number of seats available for sale and thus turn a fully booked aircraft into an over booked one.

Deadheading Crew do not pitch up at the gate and demand to fly on a whim. They are told by their Crewing Dept. to go to XYZ and the system has to deal with it.

Regarding who gets select to be offloaded; this is often done by algorithms in a booking system. Those considered to be of a lower commercial value with an airline will be chosen. Very harsh if you are chosen. Deadheading crew have the second highest priority on flights, the highest goes to engineers with tools traveling to fix broken aircraft. They will always be a carried, no matter what argument is put forward.

We don't have a clue what was said by whom and when. We do know this particular passenger has a strange reaction to stress. If this guy is a surgeon I hope he doesn't suffer with episodes such as this with an patient open on the table in front of him.

The customer service game is lost as soon as law enforcement officers show up. The deal with what they see in front of them and act accordingly.

Social media is not always fair. Clips, whilst accurate, may be taken out of context and be lacking the less newsworthy or story undermining build-up. Furthermore, to say a thing is right or wrong does not depend on onlookers shouting and screaming, it depends on the facts. But you can't delete posted social media. It's there forever (United breaks guitars). So even if you are right, your story may not be heard because social media will unfairly shout louder.

What was clear is that UA didn't allow an auction to take place. They relied on their CofC to give them a "legal" right to deny boarding. UA and every other airline might want to review their policies as every now and again a passenger unable to control themselves may be chosen and in return give you a very expensive PR headache.



You're wrong on many counts. While it's true that on a planned basis, deadheading or positioning crew reduce the number of available seats to be sold, the same does not apply to contingencies. The airline is then obliged to get their crew across to their final destination on their flights on a space available basis, on competitor flights on a commercial basis, or even make private transport arrangements by road or air. Certainly not at the expense of fare-paying passengers and absolutely not with this kind of drama. This is how Asian airlines do it and you will find ass-dragging videos of fare-paying pax hard to come by with Asian airlines.

[EEngr]

I assume that when they state that "the computer" selected candidate passengers to bump, they were looking for people with no checked luggage. So as not to have to dig through the hold and look for their bags.

This is the downside to trying to cram everything into carry-on.

[pax2908]

The Airline may not have a limit on how much they can offer to convince people to get off; but the individual(s) in charge in this case might perhaps have such a limit, or they may have to explain every $$ spent. I am not sure where we can find what the exact UAL procedure is (was), we are only told that everyone had followed it.

[KelvinD]

It is OK folks; that great travel guru, Simon Calder has resolved it all. He has told us the Captain issued the order for this bloke to be removed and therefore the passenger was breaking the law by refusing to comply.
Even more reason to ignore Mr Calder!

[birmingham]

It is OK folks; that great travel guru, Simon Calder has resolved it all. He has told us the Captain issued the order for this bloke to be removed and therefore the passenger was breaking the law by refusing to comply.
Even more reason to ignore Mr Calder!

Agreed - but whether he was breaking the law or not (and UA are probably within their rights to ask anyone they want to leave one of their planes) it is the manner in which they did it which has generated a quadzillion clicks

[CCGE29]

If United fail to build up some public confidence up and these scandals continue then I doubt that UA will be around in a couple of years time. You might say that I am going over the top however they will have lost millions of potential (and current) customers over the last few weeks with the previous incident around clothing and now this. Personally I wouldn't fly with them and family have now booked flights with EI rather than UA.

And get rid of the CEO.

[connoisseur]

It looks like things have just got a lot worse for United by picking an international fight they really didn't ought to...


tohttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/asia/united-passenger-dragged-off-china-reaction/

[Uncle Fred]

As a matter of law, I can't see why. There are potentially two matters here: 1) whether UAL breached their contract of service and overreached their authority per their own CoC, in which case no, the pax' criminal history is completely irrelevant; and 2) whether the pax is guilty of any criminal offence in protesting his removal.

In the latter case, supposing he were to be prosecuted, even his past convictions aren't admissible as evidence until after conviction, and then may only be used when considering aggravating factors where relevant during sentencing.

Thank you Strix for the measured reply. I was not being prurient but curious as to what legal direction this might take. I am sure all parties wish they could wind the clock back and relive this sad event.

[BassoRider]

If United fail to build up some public confidence up and these scandals continue then I doubt that UA will be around in a couple of years time. You might say that I am going over the top however they will have lost millions of potential (and current) customers over the last few weeks with the previous incident around clothing and now this. Personally I wouldn't fly with them and family have now booked flights with EI rather than UA.

And get rid of the CEO.



As someone whose local airport is EWR, I'm afraid that United will still be around in the future. We have an oligopoly with a government that believes in emasculating regulatory agencies. They will never act in the public interest. I'd rather not give my $$ to United, but in many cases I have no practical option.

[peekay4]

United's PR is at such a low point now that they might as well "dig in", i.e., appear conciliatory but stick to their version of the facts that the pax was belligerent and disruptive while United employees followed industry-standard procedures and practices, including seeking involvement from the Chicago Aviation Police.

It's not going to be popular but any backtracking will probably hurt them more.

[bloom]

Read most of the 30 pages; Got questions........

The instant that he refused to deplane wasn't he in violation of failing to comply with crew member instructions (FARS)? Screw UA's mumbo jumbo carriage rules.

What law enforcement agency allows blue jeans on duty ? Real cops? Or ORD rent a cops?

Ten minutes after being dragged off the plane he gets back on ?

What real cops practice "Catch and Release"?

[peekay4]

They are real cops (i.e., deputized police officers) but work for the City of Chicago Department of Aviation instead of Chicago PD. However, they're not allowed to carry guns. Their duties are similar to transit police officers elsewhere in the country (e.g., Amtrak police, NY Port Authority police, etc.)

[Airbubba]

Monsieur le Capitan was where during this event?
-"Sheeple issues? not my problem". Ok then...

That's a valid question. The plane had a Republic crew but I'm told the ORD gate agents were United employees.

Was the deadhead crew definitely Republic? Or were they mainline United?

Did an operating crewmember order the passenger to deplane? Or was it a gate agent?

[edi_local]

Read most of the 30 pages; Got questions........

The instant that he refused to deplane wasn't he in violation of failing to comply with crew member instructions (FARS)? Screw UA's mumbo jumbo carriage rules.

What law enforcement agency allows blue jeans on duty ? Real cops? Or ORD rent a cops?

Ten minutes after being dragged off the plane he gets back on ?

What real cops practice "Catch and Release"?

With regards to the blue jeans, I imagine an airport the size of ORD has a fair few "plain clothed" police officers on duty, which would explain the dress code. They are still on duty and can step in if needed, no reason to assume they were not real cops.

[DaveReidUK]

It looks like things have just got a lot worse for United by picking an international fight they really didn't ought to...

Man filmed being dragged off United flight causes outrage in China - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/asia/united-passenger-dragged-off-china-reaction/)

Leaving aside the Chinese angle, the interview with a fellow passenger on that link appears to corroborate the reports that the doctor initially agreed to be offloaded until he learned that he wouldn't fly until the mid-afternoon flight on Monday (there are two earlier O'Hare-Louisville flights, but both are operated by a different United codeshare partner, and may of course have been full anyway).

[bloom]

But "Catch and Release"?

[notapilot15]

The instant that he refused to deplane wasn't he in violation of failing to comply with crew member instructions (FARS)? Screw UA's mumbo jumbo carriage rules.
No, once passenger is seated crew can ask him to leave only under specific circumstances. Accommodating non-rev dead headers is not one of those.

What law enforcement agency allows blue jeans on duty ? Real cops? Or ORD rent a cops?
Several possibilities. Most likely a Chicago PD officer on a part time job.

Ten minutes after being dragged off the plane he gets back on ?

What real cops practice "Catch and Release"?

That's where it get real weird and with CPD's history this guy is extremely lucky to be alive. They are known to shoot unarmed people in their back.

Read USDOJ report on CPD.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/us/chicago-police-justice-department-report.html?_r=0

[andrasz]

The instant that he refused to deplane wasn't he in violation of failing to comply with crew member instructions (FARS)?This will be a very interesting test case if it ever makes it to the courts, as this is the key legal issue. I'd strongly argue that no he wasn't. FARS covers crew instructions made in the interest of the safety of the aircraft and any/all of its occupants, NOT random and unreasonable instructions of any crew member unrelated to flight safety. As many of the more knowledgeable posters pointed out over and again in the past 20 pages, this was essentially a commecial dispute completely unrelated to flight safety, and arguably in breach of the CoC (as this was clearly not a case of DB). A good analogy would be if a crew member would ask you before takeoff to pay them another $500 irrespective of what you already paid, or you will be thrown off the plane. Would you need to comply ?

[ExDubai]

That's a valid question. The plane had a Republic crew but I'm told the ORD gate agents were United employees.

Was the deadhead crew definitely Republic? Or were they mainline United?

Did an operating crewmember order the passenger to deplane? Or was it a gate agent?
Plane at the ramp, doors open. So who is in charge? Def. not the Captain.

[BluSdUp]

Just back from a great day fishing. Lots of cod and blood.
Just like on overbooked United flight.
Cod or Torsk is also a general insult in Norway,,,,,,

Anyway.
I am up to date until ca midnight last night, so I have not read all the wise words off late.
I work for a company that has 400 737- 800 and 3 Learjets for teck support and NEVER overbook. So my American experiance is limited.
Can anyone please tell me how many jump seats this rig has and why they were full.
I have two up front and two extra in the back on my 738.

I take it these were already full.
Can anyone from United please inform us on SOP on this?

In Norway they are talking about banning overbooking as we speak.

[what next]

Can anyone please tell me how many jump seats this rig has and why they were full.

I don't think the number of jumpseats really matters. They had their plane full of paying customers already in their seats. Now they need two or four additional seats to carry staff. No volunteers? Hire a bussiness jet just like any other decent airline.

Around here, that security guard would face criminal charges for just touching that passenger and go to jail for what he actually did to him. The policeman who watched it and let it happen would be suspended immediately and permanently.

The other Star Alliance partners should really consider whether or not United really fits their profile.

[GearDown&Locked]

Plane at the ramp, doors open. So who is in charge? Def. not the Captain.

Honest question: who is then? Who holds the authority to command someone to deplane, one way :cool: or the other :ouch: ?

[5000 metres]

No question this whole incident is fubar, but the UA-bashing is quite something to behold as well. Especially the "boycott United" stuff.
If I withheld my SLF $$$$ from a carrier based on non-safety-related fubar incidents, I wouldn't be left with a domestic (US) carrier to carry me.

[BluSdUp]

United part of Star Alliance, oops, No more AirCanada, SAS and Lufthansa for me!

[Carbon Bootprint]

United has issued a revised statement with a pledge to reveal the results of their internal review by the end of the month.

Statement from United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz on United Express Fight 3411
April 11, 2017

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

United - Newsroom - News Releases (http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755)

[Chronus]

Was this a case of SOP "overbooking". I doubt it very much. My guess would be something went skew whiff with roasters and crews had to be rushed over so the hell with consequences, pax had to be pulled out by their feet, screaming and yelling with finger nails tearing at the carpet at the last minute.
The curious thing though is the computer must have had the right sort of software to instantly do a quick national lottery and award the winning prize to the lucky pax. So it is no one`s fault really and no one can be blamed but the computer. Just another example of COMPUTER SAYS NO.

Oscar might be nominated for next years Oscars.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You do know that Airlines can't simply offer whatever they want, or whatever a pax wants?
You said that before, but you didn't explain who is stopping them. Without evidence I have difficulty believing this unsupported claim.

[stator vane]

If it had happened to me...and I was told to get off the airplane, I would not refuse. I would ask why, maybe complain, but never think to refuse to get off when told by the airline crew and especially any security crew. I really don't see any validity in refusing to get off when told.

[HEMS driver]

United has issued a revised statement with a pledge to reveal the results of their internal review by the end of the month.
United - Newsroom - News Releases (http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124755)

It only took 24 hours for him to walk back his second press release. These arrogant CEOs make decisions based on what they read about their airline on "social media," vs. doing what is right. Idiot!

[CCGE29]

That really doesn't justify United's response though. What a PR disaster. CEO needs to go - he has handled this situation worse than the titanic handled an iceberg.

[White Bear]

Given his behavior, if this doctor was my personal physician, I'd be looking for a replacement.

[meadowrun]

Don't think we'll see an end to the practice of overbooking flights. Statistics show there are always a percentage of no-shows and yield management reigns supreme.
Canada is introducing a passenger's rights bill federally but the minister has conceded that over booking is a fact of this business's life and the bill will focus on fair compensation for various results of inconveniences suffered due to circumstances within an airline's control.

[West Coast]

Gertrude

I offered the reference a number of pages back.

[GearDown&Locked]

If it had happened to me...and I was told to get off the airplane, I would not refuse. I would ask why, maybe complain, but never think to refuse to get off when told by the airline crew and especially any security crew. I really don't see any validity in refusing to get off when told.

Ok... so you enter a taxi, tell the driver where to go, and before it starts moving, someone shows up and the driver asks you to leave because he should take the other person instead of you.

If it happened to you, you would leave without complaining, right?

People these days are seeing their rights being eroded right in front of their eyes and are expected to say nothing, just comply with authority. Unless you want to end up in a FEMA camp somewhere.

[kaikohe76]

Apologies, if this thought has been mentioned earlier folks.

I just wonder what the position would have been, if the same `Over Booking` situation had happened at a NON US airport, where the Security / Police etc, might behave a little less like the Gestapo!
I like most of us, do not have all the facts regarding this incident, however it does reinforce my long held decision, to avoid any travel to & through the US if at all possible & also to avoid any US carrier at all costs.

[WHBM]

I'm surprised United have not come up with the "this flight was operated by Republic Airlines so nothing to do with us" line. That certainly is what happens when one of these US franchised carriers has an accident.

Let us stop writing about "overbooking". It didn't happen here. the correct number of passengers turned up and boarded. Then the carrier decided, for their own convenience, to send four of their personnel on the flight by removing four of the passengers.

Munoz's groupies in the PR team write his various comments, without any retraction of his disgraceful victim-blaming comments they previously wrote over his name. In any other decent organisation he would have offered his resignation over those comments by now, "encouraged" by his board of directors.

The thugs who did the extraction seem to be from a grey area between police and security staff. It is stated above that they are not allowed to carry guns. In the USA this must really grate on them and lead to hiring low calibre personnel. In the UK the perpetrator would be in custody by now while criminal assault charges were considered, his colleagues would be down for aiding and abetting, and the gate staff who gave them the "go boys go" command would be looking at the wrong end of a pink slip.

I wonder how the background of the passenger hit the media so fast. Did United's PR dig for dirt about him, then spread it among their contacts in the media.

[Cows getting bigger]

If I withheld my SLF $$$$ from a carrier based on non-safety-related fubar incidents, I wouldn't be left with a domestic (US) carrier to carry me.

A sad indictment of the industry?

[Gauges and Dials]

Gertrude

I offered the reference a number of pages back.

Actually, you didn't. You offered a reference to 14 CFR 250.5 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5)

That, as has been pointed out to you, stipulates the compensation that the airline must pay to those denied boarding involuntarily. It does not limit what the airline can offer in order to solicit those willing to voluntarily give up their spot.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If I withheld my SLF $$$$ from a carrier based on non-safety-related fubar incidents, I wouldn't be left with a domestic (US) carrier to carry me.
None of which seems to be trying terribly hard to dissuade me from my view that I'm quite happy not going to the USA.


My main reasons, before Trump, were the guns and the fingerprints. My wife has to go to the USA on business from time to time, but she's long since decided to avoid using USA airlines, so as she wouldn't use United anyway they won't be losing her custom over this incident.

[aox]

Don't think we'll see an end to the practice of overbooking flights. Statistics show there are always a percentage of no-shows and yield management reigns supreme.
Canada is introducing a passenger's rights bill federally but the minister has conceded that over booking is a fact of this business's life and the bill will focus on fair compensation for various results of inconveniences suffered due to circumstances within an airline's control.

On another forum someone posted a link to an article about how many passengers on United and other airlines have been involuntarily bumped off the flight.

42,500 in 5 years - average over 20 a day

Two other airlines have higher pro rata rates, but maybe United is larger, I don't know.

There is also a comparison of voluntary rates. Between the 2 categories United is bumping about 1 in 1000 passengers.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/10/united-airlines-bumps-passengers-high-rate-but-improving/LWDavgQJvNgiAglVYnGLeL/story.html

Others will know more than me, but I assume that overbooking happens because some business travellers who don't know how long their visit might be are allowed to book a spread of 4 or 5 trips and not pay until they actually choose which one to turn up for.

A few years ago, I saw an airline pilot friend do this with hotels. We arrived a day before him, and because we had 2 or 3 hours to spare in the afternoon we had to drive around them and decide which one he liked (and possibly us too, though in the end the unbooked one we arrived in at 10 pm could let us stay the whole term).

[slip and turn]

If it had happened to me...and I was told to get off the airplane, I would not refuse. I would ask why, maybe complain, but never think to refuse to get off when told by the airline crew and especially any security crew. I really don't see any validity in refusing to get off when told.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Tell us please that you would never have before imagined anything like this happening to a passenger already boarded and seated in their allocated seat? Or maybe you are you saying there is an SOP for passengers finding themselves in such a situation? :ugh:

The staff executing what they saw as within their authority and following protocol were clearly idiots who should never be employed in any capacity on an aircraft.

If the captain was aware of what his co-workers/crew were doing and did nothing to intervene then he or she too should never be employed in any capacity on an aircraft, doors closed or not. A decision to do nothing in a crisis is not a good propensity in a cockpit especially if it dismisses a deteriorating cabin environment entirely.

The eventual apology from Oscar Munoz is even dressed in a way that indicates it is nothing to do with him. It is totally to do with culture from the top that makes employees feel they are empowered or can get away with such barbaric behaviour. No three week investigation is necessary. Right-minded observers know who to blame already and it isn't the little people.

Disgraceful.

[Piper_Driver]

Others will know more than me, but I assume that overbooking happens because some business travellers who don't know how long their visit might be are allowed to book a spread of 4 or 5 trips and not pay until they actually choose which one to turn up for.

I'd say a big part of the reason for missed flights is missed connections on multi-leg flights. It's happened to me a lot!

[ShyTorque]

Surely the rules state the minimum compensation required by law, not the maximum limit.

[wings folded]

This Munoz fellow is not just a bad CEO.
His grasp of subjective pronouns is very dubious.
when he said "we" take full resposibility, he perhaps meant "I" take full resposibility.

It appears that he is awarded between 6 and 7 million remuneration in varying forms.

Does he deserve any of this?

[slip and turn]

Just back from a great day fishing. Lots of cod and blood.
Just like on overbooked United flight.
Cod or Torsk is also a general insult in Norway,,,,,,You mean as in the British colloquialism 'codswallop'? I think it is what is discarded and the manner in which it is discarded that is the insult - the fish itself is excellent - if not overfished:p

I work for a company that has 400 737- 800 and 3 Learjets for teck support and NEVER overbook.Are you sure about that? I think it used to be true, but Ryanair has acquired such robust data on its own operations that its statisticians can currently predict with supreme confidence how to overbook and manage standbys without any likely incident. How do you think it regularly ends end up with sequence numbers on some Boarding Passes with numbers greater than 189 if it does not overbook? And why does it allow up to 10 standby passengers per flight but very rigorously not confirm they can go through the gate until all other passengers are boarded with the gate otherwise closed?

In Norway they are talking about banning overbooking as we speak.Interesting.

[armchairpilot94116]

Lordy Lordy this Own Goal by United has been all over the news in the Bay Area, as well as around the world. Lambasted on late night shows, lawyers talking about multi million dollar compensation, stock drops, etc.

Announcer on local TV said it would be less damaging if United actually crashed the plane !

Took three tries before Munoz (CEO) issued an apology to the person abused. After calling him belligerent initially.

Can you imagine Singapore Airlines doing this? Cathay Pacific? EVA air? Korean? Anyone (other then a fellow American airline).

United is the brunt of all jokes now.

Twitter users hit United Airlines with memes after passenger violently dragged off plane - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/news/nation-world/article/Twitter-memes-United-Airlines-11065417.php#photo-12703774)

[Piltdown Man]

I convinced I'm in a minority of one on this thread. Given that we know nothing of what tanspired before we saw this gentleman being dragged off, we assume that this was an unlawful and illegal act carried out by some pseudo law enforcement personnel. Why? I must be missing something. Will someone please tell me what it is.

[Matt48]

Way to go UA, that'll show'em, turf a booked, paid for and seated passenger off just to seat a staff member, have the rules just changed as regards jump seat flights.

[WHBM]

The stuff about overbooking is not relevant here. This flight was not overbooked. The carrier decided to send staff members by it although all seats were sold.

Overbooking normally works for a variety of reasons, first is that departing a hub (as here) with many/most having connected, a proportion typically do not make it because their inbound was late. Another significant proportion is those high-payers with flexible tickets change plans on the day, in particular meeting ended early and they transfer forward to an earlier flight, freeing up seats on later departures.

[wings folded]

He was asked to deplane. He refused a lawful command by the crew. Yes, the manner he was removed in is awful, but this has NOTHING to do with whether the command for his removal from the flight was lawful or not.

What absolute nonsense. He seems to have presented no danger to the safe conduct of the flight prior to being assaulted by uniformed (only just - since when are jeans standard issue to the police?) "security"

Munoz's explanation that he was belligerant is self serving crap. Who would not get a little upset at being chucked off a flight while sitting peacefully in their assigned seat, on the feeble grounds that the airline had amade a total balls up on the load, and needed seats to relocate their own staff.

[Matt48]

As usual, the media can't get the story right, it wasn't an overbooking issue, seems to be some internal problems at UA to allow this sort of drama to happen in full view of a plane full of passengers, UA are in for a world of hurt when this gets to court.

[wings folded]

It won't get to court.
A settlement will be agreed. It could be for quite a lot, but the cost of it will not fall on shareholders or Munoz, just a few cents more on each ticket.
That's the American way.

[Photonic]

I convinced I'm in a minority of one on this thread. Given that we know nothing of what tanspired before we saw this gentleman being dragged off, we assume that this was an unlawful and illegal act carried out by some pseudo law enforcement personnel. Why? I must be missing something. Will someone please tell me what it is.

It's not a question of being unlawful or illegal, just totally unnecessary. Here's what we know so far, about what transpired. The airline got 3 seats freed up at the $800 offer level, and stopped the bidding there without going higher. The person in question inquired about the offer, and declined after finding out he would miss being home by Monday morning. No drama, so far.

The drama started when they decided to haul this guy off the plane anyway, without taking the more reasonable step of continuing to raise the offer for anyone else who might volunteer.

We haven't heard that the passenger was unruly or belligerent before they reached this point. As far as we know (pending any details to follow), he was perfectly happy to sit in his seat and enjoy the flight until then. Did he go overboard, with shouting or threats when they insisted he get out of his seat? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The airline had another option for dealing with it, and instead they lit the fuse for everything that followed.

[Airbubba]

Can you imagine Singapore Airlines doing this? Cathay Pacific? EVA air? Korean? Anyone (other then a fellow American airline).

I've flown on all of those carriers over they years and have operated into most of their bases.

I would suggest that if a convicted drug trafficker with documented anger management and psych issues became belligerent when told to deplane, well, he might not be treated with kid gloves. ;)

[Matt48]

Apparently his felony convictions for drug trafficking and his wife alerting the authorities about his toy-boy motel trysts with his young patient and office manager were big news in the local SDF area.

As the Louisville Courier-Journal put it in an article cited here earlier:
If being a passenger depended on being a model citizen, airlines would have gone out of business decades ago.

[J.O.]

I've flown on all of those carriers over they years and have operated into most of their bases.

I would suggest that if a convicted drug trafficker with documented anger management and psych issues became belligerent when told to deplane, well, he might not be treated with kid gloves. ;)

How exactly would any of the protagonists know the man's history? By the way, his history is completely irrelevant to what transpired.

[Matt48]

The way to get a volunteer is to keep raising the price, or change to cash rather than 'future travel' money. Or offer other incentives. Even if it cost them a couple of thousand, that would have been cheap compared to what this will cost them. An airline should never involuntary deny boarding to any paying passenger.

Money talks, it should never be dragged screaming and kicking down the aisle.
Another way is let them all know that nobody is going anywhere until the required deplaning happens, just let 'em stew.

[West Coast]

Matt
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant.

Guages

I've offered you the CFR that regulates compensation, know that refuting it you are you're relying on Internet lawyers who as of yesterday had never known of its existence.

[Blondie2005]

The police were called because the passenger refused to leave. The pax doesn't have some absolute right to remain on private property. Thisis UA's property, if you're booted out of someone's business and refuse, do you honestly think management is just going to say, ok, you can stay.

None of which, in the eyes of the law, justifies committing the criminal offence of assault.

[Gauges and Dials]

Matt


I've offered you the CFR that regulates compensation, know that refuting it you are you're relying on Internet lawyers who as of yesterday had never known of its existence.

I'm not relying on any 'Internet lawyers', and I was well aware of the relevant CFR long before yesterday. I'm relying on my own knowledge of the industry, of the regulations under which it operates, and, ultimately, my own ability to read.

The reg in question says nothing about the airline's ability to offer whatever it wants to passengers, as an enticement to get them to change to another flight, to change to another seat, to wear the airline's promotional hat, or anything else. Nothing. Your assertion that it does, is just as bizarre as it would be to assert that the regulation in question pertains to the thickness of paper on which ticket stock must be printed.

[Matt48]

Matt
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant.

Guages

I've offered you the CFR that regulates compensation, know that refuting it you are you're relying on Internet lawyers who as of yesterday had never known of its existence.
For what it's worth, I would have taken the offer and got off, in fact many years ago, was travelling with a group and some of us couldn't be accommodated for the trip from SF to OZ, took up the offer which was a 3 course dinner at a local hotel in SF,in return for flying out 4 hours later, the deal was offered long before we left for the airport.

[West Coast]

A quite reasonable response.

[Gauges and Dials]

Matt
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant.



If only more people had been compliant throughout history, we would never have had the Magna Carta, the US would still be a British colony, and black people would still be legally relegated to the back of the bus.

Because of this incident, you can bet that United is going to put some effort into fixing whatever broken set of policy, supervisory, and training cock-ups led to this problem in the first place. Had the passenger meekly complied, then the problem would continue to fester.

[Matt48]

It seems the pendulum has well and truly swung at UA, not long ago, some relatives of UA employees were refused travel because they were wearing leggings, now they literally drag a customer kicking and screaming off the flight to make way for staff 'relocations'.

[ExDubai]

Honest question: who is then? Who holds the authority to command someone to deplane, one way :cool: or the other :ouch: ?

If you ask the ramp agent over the pond they claim that's their cup of tea as long as you are on "their ramp" and the doors are open.

[Matt48]

A quite reasonable response.
The airline was Pan Am.

[anson harris]

without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE

Really? Doesn't an order have to be legal and thus justifiable in a court of law?

[ExDubai]

I'm not relying on any 'Internet lawyers', and I was well aware of the relevant CFR long before yesterday. I'm relying on my own knowledge of the industry, of the regulations under which it operates, and, ultimately, my own ability to read.

The reg in question says nothing about the airline's ability to offer whatever it wants to passengers, as an enticement to get them to change to another flight, to change to another seat, to wear the airline's promotional hat, or anything else. Nothing. Your assertion that it does, is just as bizarre as it would be to assert that the regulation in question pertains to the thickness of paper on which ticket stock must be printed.
Delta offers frequently (depends on the situation) more then the "min. amount". My "ex housedragon" received last year 2.000 Dollar+Hotel and Dinner.

[Blondie2005]

There's no absolute rights when you're on private property.

Yes there are. Lots and lots of them.

[Bealzebub]

Some (most) of you people are blinded by your emotions. The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority and he asked the cabin crew to carry out a company command (remove 4 passengers) for WHATEVER reason (in this case, to take on 4 non-revs). He can do that without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE.

Going back to the very start of this thread, it isn't about what the captain can do. It is about how this situation was managed. It wasn't managed very well! The captain (who answers to a lot of people) is a senior manager in a customer focused industry. That responsibility in turn devolves to a number of other people under his or her charge. Good management involves awareness, common sense, flexibility and communication. When those ingredients are best employed this sort of situation simply shouldn't arise and of course it rarely does. There is no suggestion in any of these reports that the captain was particularly instrumental in managing the sequence of events and it is still sufficiently opaque as to exactly who was driving these decisions. Nevertheless it seems to be have been very poorly managed at many levels.

[Geosync]

I'm no lawyer, but I am in aviation claims, and this will be a major claim since UA's insurance company will pay for their defense (aka hire the attorneys) and settlement. It doesn't really matter what the background of this guy is. What matters is what happened in that incident, and what was broadcasted to the world to see. This doctor(however crooked he may be) already has a lawyer who is writing up the complaint against UA stuffed full of everything he/she can think of. Bodily injury, mental anguish, pain and suffering, you name it. The suit will be for multiple millions of dollars, and yes there will be plenty of fluff in there. But UA will not want to try this case. They will settle out of court.

Imagine the defense attorney in front of the jury, explaining why UA was within their rights to treat this guy like a sack of :mad:, pulling out rules and fine print. Then trying to assassinate the plaintiff's character. Any American jury would begin to quiver with rage that the big bad airline, with the arrogant CEO would even think of trying to justify the way the plaintiff was treated. All the plaintiff attorney will have to do is play the videos over and over, then say "so because UA employees needed to get somewhere, it was UA's right to give Dr. So and So a blooded face, concussion, and international humiliation??" They will award the plaintiff as much as they possibly can. I've been in the courtrooms for many smaller, yet similar cases, and the airline ALWAYS loses.

And don't forget the cop goons that did the actual dirty work. Their department will be sued as well. That's the way it works here in America, suits are filed against the airlines every day, but this one has major legs. UA really cocked this one all up.

[West Coast]

Matt

The legging incident was discussed earlier, they were traveling on pass privledges (free/deeply discounted tickets from an employee,l) thus required to comply with a dress code.

[armchairpilot94116]

I've flown on all of those carriers over they years and have operated into most of their bases.

I would suggest that if a convicted drug trafficker with documented anger management and psych issues became belligerent when told to deplane, well, he might not be treated with kid gloves. ;)


NOT applicable to this person.

[slip and turn]

I don't know if it is still sufficiently up to date as it is a paper 17½ years old, but some of this may assist consideration of the legals of forced disembarkation:

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oct99-DisPAX/121099-kane.pdf

[Gauges and Dials]

If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.


I think you're missing a key element here. If a guy goes into a coffee-shop (which is a place of public accommodation), and the owner says, "We don't serve <insert ethnic group or other protected class> here," and the guy insists on his legal right to be served, and the situation escalates, and the owner calls the police, and the police break the guy's face, then he's absolutely going to sue the coffee shop. As he should. And he will win. It is the coffee shop that initiated, provoked, and escalated the situation.

[Gauges and Dials]

Some (most) of you people are blinded by your emotions. The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority and he asked the cabin crew to carry out a company command (remove 4 passengers) for WHATEVER reason (in this case, to take on 4 non-revs). He can do that without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE.

I do not know of any airline in which a captain can arbitrarily offload a paying passenger for no reason, without needing to justify his actions to his management, at the risk of losing his job. Do you?

Also, there are not very many countries in which a captain can arbitrarily offload a paying passenger for no reason, without needing to justify his actions to the aviation or business regulatory authorities, at the risk of a fine or other sanction.

I'd call the statement categorically false.

[Photonic]

If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.

Not if the sign over the coffee shop says "Starbucks."

Personal injury attorneys go after whatever deep pockets are available, when there is the slightest chance a jury would find the actions of the "venue" liable. And there is more than enough evidence (in social media/jury sympathy terms) to include United here. There will be a strong motive to settle and avoid further PR damage.

[redsetter]

> If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.

Isn't a closer analogy: "A guy goes into a coffee-shop and pays for a coffee, and sits down quietly at a table, and the coffee-shop owner asks him to leave before he has drunk his coffee because he wants his staff to use that table, and the guy refuses, so the coffee shop owner calls the police, and they beat him"

[5000 metres]

A sad indictment of the industry?
Actually, I'm quite happy with the industry. The safety record of the industry is nothing less than astonishing. I can live with non-safety-related fubar. When the safety goes sideways, then I'll start to worry. btw, and apropos of safety and boycotting, an interesting read is the comments thread on the story today about this incident in the Grauniad where commenters are boasting about abandoning UAL and happily taking their business to THY and KAL.

[Bealzebub]

As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.

No, I am afraid you are being idealistic. There are often things that happen without the captains consent. There is no suggestion that the captain consented to any of this being executed in the manner it was. The captain may have been doing the "walk around" for all I know. Even if it were the case that he ordered the course of action, it is highly unlikely that he oversaw its execution. I think you need put the " lawful command and other utterances of self importance" handbook back into your back pocket until such time as it is properly needed, and use management skills to resolve an otherwise difficult situation. That is achieved just as effectively by supporting other people under your charge to do the same.

[kilfeder]

How much would you pay to have a positive television commercial such as this watched by a millions and millions of people not only across the US but across the world? I live in London England and most of my friends have seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI

This story is massive in Britain, and I suspect everywhere. It is a catastrophic disaster for the airline industry in general, and obviously for UA in particular.
I must admit that I'm astonished to see that a number of professionals such as West Coast (did you ever tell us which al you fly for?) believe that what happened was okay.
I find that more shocking than anything else about this sordid matter.
Here's a good piece in the "Economist".

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/04/when-ticket-not-enough?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

Had they offered a million dollars to anyone to volunteer to leave the plane it would have been money saved.

[ShyTorque]

I see that a couple of proponents of violence applied to passengers now try to justify the actions because the passenger concerned has a "record", only since uncovered? Are these proponents saying that he therefore deserved everything that happened to him? Are they saying that his sentences, whatever they may have been, were insufficient punishment and in their opinions, were not spent? I doubt any court of law would agree.

Strange that UAL were quite happy in the first instance to take his money, in advance, for a flight ticket.

His alleged belligerence appears only to have occurred once he was about to be forcibly removed from the aircraft. No doubt had his request not to "volunteer" to defer his ticket been taken notice of, he would have sat totally quietly.

To try to make out that he was going to compromise the safety of the aircraft is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

[Greek God]

Gun Foot Shoot!
There is much hyperbole being spouted here but also countered by many common sense observations and many incorrect assumptions!
The Captain has ultimate authority only when the doors are closed otherwise he is generally the conduit for operational instructions from Operations.
That the situation was shockingly handled is beyond question and reaffirms my wariness of US attitudes and enforcement protocols. Plus how can the airline "suddenly" discover it needed to position 4! crew members ?..
In europe I could not begin to imagine this situation occurring. I have had to manage offloads on several occasions but always from a safety/inebriated, aircraft performance/MTOW, tech angle. Positioning crew will NEVER trump a fare paying passenger. Spare Jump/crew seats can be authorised but thats it. If the crew cannot be accommodated then the airline will charter to postion the crew as required.
This disgraceful mismanaged event was matched only by the defensive arrogance of an uncaring remote corporation.

[Turbine D]

West Coast & Airbubba,
It seems to me you are deeply down into the weeds trying to justify what has happened in this incident as being OK from the cockpit viewpoint. I think you both need to take a look at it from a much higher level.

There is a rule of business that applies and it is blind to whatever business you are in, the airline business isn't exempt. Simply stated, "A company's reputation in the eye's of its customers is built over years and years of demonstrated customer satisfaction. But, reputation that developed and was built over those years can be lost in a blink of an eye when customer satisfaction, either perceived or real is lost."

While you are defending an event based on complex rules or regulations, some of which are open for interpretation, customers who know little or nothing about the rules you are using to justify your positions, look at visual information (270 million views so far) as to what took place and conclude that it didn't need to happen.

The customers are smart enough to recognize there were better ways to handle this situation by the airline and that even the way it was handled, created the entire situation. Turning the episode over to the authorities to solve was a huge mistake.

This morning, at the opening bell the airline lost $1B in valuation, at closing it recovered to losing only $250M. If you are a CEO of a company that deals with individual customers, thousands of them every day, you expect to have employees that are customer oriented at the lowest level. If you are not customer oriented on the frontline, don't expect to be ever among the best providers having the best businesses.

[BusAirDriver]

Clay "passengers comply with lawful crew instructions"

Astonishing.
Few facts, flight was not overbooked by paying passengers.

Passengers was not denied boarding, he had not been informed about anything until he was sitting peacefully in his seat.
What world do you Clay and West live in, SkyGod world I guess, who believe this is the right way to treat a paying customer, because the airline have problems to have crew for other flights.

Is the inconvenience of the passengers who are travelling to destination X, most likely because they have a reason to be there, are their lives less important than that of the crews DH, because the airline have their own logistical issues?
Can US pilots / crew not use jump seats? Or is that below their SkyGod status?

I once saw similar situation, gate staff made a mistake and allowed a standby passenger to board, before a Captain on positioning flight had taken his seat, suddenly the aircraft was full, jump seat was also full, Captain was told to stand down, there was never a question to have a passenger removed.

This situation is down to the airlines internal crewing issues, and showing disregard for the passenger.

Options available was upping the compensation price, or taxi for the crew, was within driving distance. However UA acted cheaply here, and the result is it has cost them a fortune already, and will cost them more during the next few months.

The Coffee Shop analogy is pretty good, the passenger was not a treat and had no obligation to remove himself after he had been placed in his seat.
I am fairly sure involuntary removal is either before you board the aircraft or if you are an unruly passenger, in this case he was neither.

If you have such disregard to your paying customer, the people who pays your salary, maybe you should start flying cargo instead. You can not forcefully remove a passenger who has legally fulfilled his obligations, the breach of contract is by the UA in this case, and it would be great to see this go all the way to court, unfortunately it probably will not. But I can imagine there will come some new legislation out of this, and it will not be in favour of the airlines.

[kilfeder]

Here's an interesting example

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for &apos;higher-priority&apos; traveler - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html)

[gwynevans]

Did the passenger get to the destination that evening? did he fly the next day? did he cancel his trip? did he fly with a different airline?

Currently undergoing treatment at a Chicago hospital, according to a recent BBC News article.

[PAXboy]

I think we can guess that the Pax did not know that he HAD to obey the crew command and it looks very much like crew did not spend too long explaining the details of the Ts&Cs to him. So, the fact that he reacted badly may have been because he did not know the rules and the ones who knew the rules were so used to them - that they didn't stop to explain.

Likewise, the stock market has not waited for an explanation. Just look at their graph for the last 36 hours. All other carriers must be very grateful to United for the free lesson.

[kilfeder]

I see that a couple of proponents of violence applied to passengers now try to justify the actions because the passenger concerned has a "record", only since uncovered? Are these proponents saying that he therefore deserved everything that happened to him?

Malicious people might suspect that United, in a hole, kept digging, and employed folk to hunt for dirt about the passenger and leak it to the Press (even though any oddities in his life - we all have oddities and failures in our lives - are totally irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what happened).

Fortunately I'm not cynical and am sure that they did no such thing!

[Matt48]

As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.

The Captain could very well have said 'i'm not bumping anyone, get these people (the non-revs) another way to Kentucky'.



Again, the Captain green-lights anything pertaining to the aircraft.



If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.

United cannot and will not be found liable for the actions of these people who are not employed by the company. United could 0 but will not be found - liable for deplaning this passenger because, like I've said, once this decision has been made (rightfully or not, it's in the eyes of the beholder) there is little this passenger can do.
" As you very well know, nothing happens on any plane without the captains consent". Really, you sure about that, plane on the ground, at the ramp, doors open, no engines running, I'm not so sure.

[Matt48]

I can see this episode being used for years into the future as a valuable training tool on how not to handle a simple situation, Basil Fawlty might even be available to star.

[Jet II]

Here's an interesting example

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for &apos;higher-priority&apos; traveler - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html)

I'm gobsmacked at that story - how can any airline expect to remain in business if they treat their First Class passengers like that!

[Jet II]

As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent.

So the Captain is responsible for the guy getting slammed into an armrest and knocked out?

[Katamarino]

I'm gobsmacked at that story - how can any airline expect to remain in business if they treat their First Class passengers like that!

As we've seen from the responses of many of the "professional" pilots on here, the attitude from the flight deck seems to mirror the attitude of the rest of the staff at airlines in the US. If you don't have the option to fly with a company that doesn't view it's customers with contempt, as in the US, then you're pretty much stuck with using one of them unless you never go anywhere.

[Fonsini]

The CEO could have turned this disaster into a PR success:

"I was shocked and quite frankly horrified when I saw the way our passenger was treated in the video. This does not represent United Airlines or the values we hold dear. I will be personally reaching out to Dr. Dao to take whatever measures are required to make this right, and on behalf of United I want to apologize to both Dr. Dao and all of our customers, especially those on the flight in question. With immediate effect I have instructed our staff to put the following measures in place....<insert measures where passengers are more important than deadheading staff>".

Instead the maroon made it 10 times worse.

[HEMS driver]

The CEO could have turned this disaster into a PR success:
...
Instead the maroon made it 10 times worse.

Munoz has no moral compass. His weak apology only occurred after he checked his tea leaves, Twitter, and this morning's UAL stock price. :=

[Jet Jockey A4]

I see these references used a lot in this case...

"He refused a lawful command by the crew..."

"Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"


"The crew" in this case would be one of the pilots or flight attendants correct?

Do we know for a fact the doctor disobeyed a direct order to disembark from a crew member of the flight or did this escalate after a gate agent talked to him?

If it was a gate agent I don't see how he broke any law.

[West Coast]

Malicious people might suspect that United, in a hole, kept digging, and employed folk to hunt for dirt about the passenger and leak it to the Press (even though any oddities in his life - we all have oddities and failures in our lives - are totally irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what happened).

Hate to dissuade you of your conspiracy theory, but you need not employ anyone to find dirt, you can do it yourself. In the US many states where medical professionals are licensed have web sites to verify accreditation/good standing. All it takes for anyone interested is a few key strokes.

[BusAirDriver]

Whatever past this man has, is irrelevant regarding what happen in this case. It will bare no view on whatever settlement he deservedly receives.

Even eyewitnesses have come out stating that the man had not done anything wrong and had not been disruptive until UA decided to have him removed by force.

My prediction UA's CEO is living on borrowed time, UA have lost over 600 million on their share prices because of this, how funny how ignorant some SkyGods are, and how little respect they have for their paying customers.

[rottenray]

First, to all the supposed "professionals" who claim that it's fine to toss or drag someone off a plane, remember what business you're in and who pays your company.

Without the idiots, who you call punters and self loading freight, you'd have no work to do. This has been mentioned before. Get over it. We pay your company to transport us. We don't pay your company to abuse us or leave us stranded because your company can't put personnel in the right place at the right time through internal operations.

I'd love to see the reaction on West's face if a hostess asked him to leave a restaurant after he'd been seated, telling him that staff had to eat instead.

I pay for a ticket, show up, and expect to be taken to my destination. I don't expect to suffer because of bad planning or bad business practices on your part.

I haven't looked at schedules and don't intend to, but this idea crossed my mind.

If the flight was full of paying pax, couldn't the four have been accommodated on a competitor's flight? That's not unheard of.

Years ago, I saw a Delta captain (in uniform) board the Southwest flight I was on. I didn't ask questions, other than how are you doing? He was sitting across the aisle. He said that he'd had more pleasant days, and as soon as we reached cruise he took a nap.

Some of you forget what business you're in. That business is transporting people who have purchased tickets.

The good news for you is that people will continue to fly to get from A to B as soon as possible.

The bad news is that your attitude has already infected the traveling public, and most travelers choose based on price instead of satisfaction.

So when another company undercuts United, your alienated customers will flock there.

Serves you right.

[Sorry Dog]

I will be quite surprised if Munoz still has his job in a week. This is the biggest corporate PR cockup since Volkswagen and I think at this point nothing short of the CEO resigning will do. Even then United better start thinking about company wide brand perception initiatives to rehabilitate their image. If I was a large shareholder I would be demanding these changes as a start.

Munoz has had a few opportunities to stem the PR tide against them and possibly save his job and he has only muffed it with half apologies. I sort of don't get it because at that point the only big benefit in doing that is personal and corporate pride. In a customer service industry sometimes you have to say sorry for things that are beyond your control (or don't really agree with).

For those that think United's personal had the right to do what they did, you should remember that in the end result of this PR disaster, the rules are irrelevant. Besides if this happened more frequently you can be sure the rules would be changed... which might now happen anyway.

[WingNut60]

Who left this gate open? And where's my horse?

Never mind taxis or rent-a-jet, there are about 10 direct flights per day Chicago to Louisville (though not all from ORD), plus the non-direct options. Five of those flights are UA and two of which would probably have got him to his destination in time to see his morning patients.
Put yourself in this guys shoes, he was apparently agreeable to what was offered until he learned that "we'll put you on another flight" did not necessarily mean on the "next scheduled flight". In fact, it seems like they were going to put him on the 4th next available flight, or later.
How would you feel about that?

Could they have not bumped someone on the later flight that night, someone who had not yet already boarded an aircraft and occupied their seat, to get this fellow home before midnight?
Or is overbooking so frequent that cascading "bumps" is vetoed?

Did none of those other flights present acceptable options for offer to either a) the other UA passengers, or b) the DH crew?
Or is a veto of the use of opposition airlines also part of UA's policy? Probably is, right?
This for the same reason that they give travel vouchers and not cash. Who wants to give a passenger cash that he might use to sample the opposition's services.

Seems like there were lots of available and acceptable options. Just none that were listed in the passenger service manual.

[WingNut60]

This may not be relevant to the outcome in this case, but I'm interested to know more about the "randomly selected" algorithm that their computer system uses.It is far more likely that any such selection algorithm looks at such things as fare type, travelling alone, customer loyalty, etc. than that it selects randomly.
Perhaps random selection is applied to a final short-list.

And that raises another point, some video footage seems to suggest that he was travelling with a female companion. See female running down aisle in hot pursuit.
Can we presume in such a case, if it is the case, that the offer to re-accommodate was for both him and his companion? After all, they only needed ONE more seat, or so it has been reported.

[rottenray]

The DAL Capt was likely JS'ing to or from work. I do it twice a week, often on SWA. JS'ing is different from DH'ing.

Likely jumpseating, sitting in the cabin instead of the flight deck?

If the vital crew needed so badly could have gotten seats on a different carrier and done so without displacing and inconveniencing paying customers, what would have been the difference?

Actually, it would have saved $$ as well. No comp checks, no hotel vouchers.

As it sits, United set up a catastrophic situation because of poor resource management.

Aggravated by trying to fill every seat one hundred and ten percent.

And they've dragged others into a legal situation which won't end well.

Beat the **** out of some trailer trash drunk dude who carried a garbage bag on as carry on luggage, you'll get away with it.

A doctor?

Not so much.

Stepped in dung, they have.

[Koan]

I was in the Regionals for 10 years doing hub flying. Weather, overbooking, crew out of position requiring paid pax to be offloaded. Very common. Sometimes we wasted so much time waiting for volunteers the flight ended up canceling anyway. People want cheap tickets and the airlines don't have crew standing by in every city.
Some are saying the crew should have taken a rental car. Are there that many people on this board who have so little knowledge of airline operations? When YOUR flight the next day is delayed for hours and everybody misses their connections and now needs hotels and re-accomodation on other flights (that are probably full) that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?

Our contract now does not allow DH in a jumpseat. Some are still tempted at times by ground staff to take one, it is a personal choice but doing so can create an expectation that undermines the contract and your fellow workers and can screw over another guy who is trying to commute. Management understands this , no longer generally done.

[Airbubba]

Likely jumpseating, sitting in the cabin instead of the flight deck?

Uh, have you ever jumpseated on Southwest? :confused:

[peekay4]

My prediction UA's CEO is living on borrowed time, UA have lost over 600 million on their share prices because of this, how funny how ignorant some SkyGods are, and how little respect they have for their paying customers.
UAL stock largely recovered intraday.

Since Munoz took over less than 2 years ago, United's market cap has risen by US $4.5 Billion. Even counting today's blip, UAL shares are still trading near record highs, up an impressive 27% vs. last year.

Munoz has his detractors (and health issues) but somehow I don't see United's board removing him very soon.

[West Coast]

Likely jumpseating, sitting in the cabin instead of the flight deck?

Yes. If there's a cabin seat available, you sit there, if not on the actual JS.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Some are saying the crew should have taken a rental car. Are there that many people on this board who have so little knowledge of airline operations? When YOUR flight the next day is delayed for hours and everybody misses their connections and now needs hotels and re-accomodation on other flights (that are probably full) that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?

If the crew getting to their destination was so important then why not charter a biz jet (or similar) to get them there rather than physically assault and cause actual bodily harm to the people that pay their salaries?

[West Coast]

the vital crew needed so badly could have gotten seats on a different carrier and done so without displacing and inconveniencing paying customers, what would have been the difference?


You cant JS on company business on another carrier, as in a UAL walks to the AA plane. Absolutely verboten. JS is to allow crews off duty to get themselves where they need to be, not where the company needs to send them.

[Gauges and Dials]

You cant JS on company business on another carrier, as in a UAL walks to the AA plane. Absolutely verboten. JS is to allow crews off duty to get themselves where they need to be, not where the company needs to send them.

And who said they had to JS? United could have, you know, bought them actual tickets.

You keep painting a picture of management having been hamstrung with no options, when in fact there were loads of unexplored options.

[West Coast]

A poster had been enquiring about jumpseating, making sure he/she was clear the difference between JSing and DHing.

[Koan]

If the crew getting to their destination was so important then why not charter a biz jet (or similar) to get them there rather than physically assault and cause actual bodily harm to the people that pay their salaries?

Heard that many times too last 24 hours. That is a good idea. How long will that take to arrange 30 minutes? 14 hours? Understand there are not fleets of Lear Jets with pilots sitting at every airport waiting to be chartered at a moments notice. That takes time. Once that is all arranged the crew then may be going to a hotel to start a rest period. Then the flight they are to operate on the schedule is delayed. And all the people on that flight will be delayed too and miss connections and so on. That is why DH crew scheduled to operate live flights are designated MUST RIDE and board at the highest priority above all others. It has been that way forever and the pilots on this board know this. Unfortunately it appears many people here have absolutely no idea how airlines actually operate.

About the brutality that is a problem related to Policing in America. Nobody at ORD at United got angry with the man or touched him as far as I know. After he disregarded crew instructions, multiple times (Federal Offense in the USA), the staff followed SOP and called Law Enforcement.

[Blondie2005]

It's fairly straight forward:

It is fairly safe to assume that there was a legal contract of service between the man and UAL, or UAL would not have issued him a boarding pass and he would never have made it onto the plane. It is reasonable to assume that UAL should fulfil its part of the exchange of consideration (ie transport to his destination) because the man paid his money (his part of the exchange of consideration). This is basic contract law.

Unless good cause can be shown that UAL acted within its CoC and the provisions of 14 CFR §250 — and the burden is on UAL (as the party to have breached contract) to prove that it did so — it is reasonable to assume that what transpired was unlawful and/or a breach of contract.

I have seen no such evidence, and I am not inclined to give UAL the benefit of the doubt until I do.
Let us suppose for a moment United had the contractual right to require him to leave the plane. By refusing to do so, he would then be in breach. However, this situation is also straightforward. There is no provision of contract law that allows you to enforce your rights against the other party by assaulting them.

[West Coast]

What UA person placed a hand on the good Dr?

[Blondie2005]

What UA person placed a hand on the good Dr?

You do not escape criminal liability by instructing another to carry out the assault and then saying "it wasn't me".

[Sonny_Jim]

Blah blah, Captain can throw off anyone they want blah Passenger was belligerent blah...

But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?

All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?

[Gauges and Dials]

[...] that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?.

I believe the question hangs to some degree on whether the order to deplane was legal or not.

"Get off for w/b issues," "get off because your seat is broken," "get off because we haven't got enough cabin crew," are all clearly lawful. "Get off so I can give my buddies a ride," somewhat murkier, eh?

[lederhosen]

I am strongly reminded of that great movie 'planes trains and automobiles' and the scene where Steve Martin is bumped from his first class seat. This is a classic customer service fail and I suspect there are a few people not looking forward to the promised review. Munoz may have been a little slow off the mark. But I suspect the CEO of Republic, who actually operated the flight on behalf of United, will be having some interesting discussions with him. Given that Republic are in a lot worse shape financially I would be more worried about his and his employees jobs, than about anyone at United. If there is an upside to this whole sorry tale, it is probable that some long overdue attention will be directed by the bean counters to the customer service experience and hopefully not just at United.

[Blondie2005]

Blondie

You know UA agent said to drag him down the aisle?

There will be evidence of instruction on which to base an argument of agency. Even without it, I'd be happy to ask the jury to make that inference. The alternative is that these pseudo-police turned up deus ex machina. I'd love to see the defence argue that, I'd have the jury laughing.

[Icarus2001]

There is no provision of contract law that allows you to enforce your rights against the other party by assaulting them.

No we have the police, who gave a lawful instruction to a passenger, he would not comply so they used THEIR RIGHTS under law and removed him.

The airline staff did not assault anyone as far as I can see.

[Koan]

I believe the question hangs to some degree on whether the order to deplane was legal or not.

"Get off for w/b issues," "get off because your seat is broken," "get off because we haven't got enough cabin crew," are all clearly lawful. "Get off so I can give my buddies a ride," somewhat murkier, eh?

The overbook situation resulted from an operational necessity to board Dead Head crew scheduled to operate a live flight. Nothing to do with giving a buddy a free ride, free flights for non rev staff, or any other such rubbish as I have endured on my FB feed today.:ugh:

[Matt48]

I'm gobsmacked at that story - how can any airline expect to remain in business if they treat their First Class passengers like that!
That's amazing, so these clowns have history, they have honed this to a razor edge.

[Mark in CA]

I wonder how the background of the passenger hit the media so fast. Did United's PR dig for dirt about him, then spread it among their contacts in the media.

As former PR wonk, I wondered the same thing. My guess is it was dug up by someone like those on here blaming the victim. The Internet makes this pretty easy for anyone to do, no longer just in the realm of "professionals."

[Gauges and Dials]

What UA person placed a hand on the good Dr?


By reaching further and further, you're hurting your own side here.

There are legitimate arguments to be made on the UAL side, and I'm sure they will be made as well as can be, by UAL's PR people and by UAL's lawyers.

As to the specific question you raise, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency

[Gauges and Dials]

Here's what appears to be some relevant case law, if you want to shed a little light on the question

RADVANSKY v. CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS | FindLaw (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1050713.html)

[Koan]

Blah blah, Captain can throw off anyone they want blah Passenger was belligerent blah...

But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?

All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?
That is a rhetorical argument that would not stand up at court. Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.

Example. Full flight is delayed. Now destination weather goes down, ILS NOTAM out of service. More fuel must be uploaded. Any number of MEL considerations requiring weight restriction requiring PAX to be offloaded in reverse order of boarding priority. Happens all the time in actual operations.

[Gauges and Dials]

The overbook situation resulted from an operational necessity to board Dead Head crew scheduled to operate a live flight. Nothing to do with giving a buddy a free ride, free flights for non rev staff, or any other such rubbish as I have endured on my FB feed today.:ugh:


"Give my buddies a ride" was my (admittedly flippant) way of pointing out that the airline wanted those four seats for its own financial convenience and not due to any exigent operational necessity. There was absolutely zero operational necessity to reposition those crew on that specific flight. Chicago is a major hub for United, the claim that there was no other way to get those folks to Louisville is ludicrous on its face.

[Gauges and Dials]

That is a rhetorical argument that would not stand up at court. Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.

Example. Full flight is delayed. Now destination weather goes down, ILS NOTAM out of service. More fuel must be uploaded. Any number of MEL considerations requiring weight restriction requiring PAX to be offloaded in reverse order of boarding priority. Happens all the time in actual operations.

Fair point, with one caveat. The scenario you are describing is one in which conditions arise in which passengers need to be offloaded in order to operate the flight safely and legally. No such condition applied here.

[Gauges and Dials]

No we have the police, who gave a lawful instruction to a passenger, he would not comply so they used THEIR RIGHTS under law and removed him.


Pretty significant assumption there.

[Matt48]

When you pass the checkpoint at the gate your ticket becomes legally activated/used and you are boarded.
I agree, when your boarding card is checked and you are let go through to the plane, you are technically making your way to your seat, the time to deal with excess pax numbers is at the gate. or before.

[West Coast]

Blondie

As you're working on opinion as you've nothing other than media reports and a few seconds of tape that's not complete to establish your perspective, my position as someone who's initiated the removal is as valid if not more so than yours. Having done the Vegas to LA shuttle hundreds of times, I've talked with with the LEOs on a number of occasions. The discussion doesn't start or end with "drag his ass off my plane". It's an explanation that he/she can't remain on the aircraft for whatever reason. We've asked that they leave the aircraft and they have refused. How the LEO deals with it from there is nothing I have any say in. Can't say as I've had anyone dragged out as of yet, but others have and to my knowledge have never had any legal actions taken against the company.

[crewmeal]

Two points here. If he was removed in favour of crew, were said crew on duty travel? If so surely they would have been booked in the first place. If they were on staff travel (ID 90) why were they given priority of a fare paying passenger? Secondly sources are now saying it was racist choosing an Asian passenger to offload as it was an easy target.

The MD of United's comments were not helpful firing accusations about his private life.

[Matt48]

"Give my buddies a ride" was my (admittedly flippant) way of pointing out that the airline wanted those four seats for its own financial convenience and not due to any exigent operational necessity. There was absolutely zero operational necessity to reposition those crew on that specific flight. Chicago is a major hub for United, the claim that there was no other way to get those folks to Louisville is ludicrous on its face.
That's right, how many times have we flown internally in the US and been in half full planes, it's not like it was a life and death situation that these four staff had to be on THAT particular plane, if after asking nicely if anyone would volunteer to give up their seat, if no one did then it becomes a company problem, they could check for other means to fix the problem, not sool the cops/security onto a law abiding passenger, what tools.

[Gauges and Dials]

There was absolutely zero operational necessity to reposition those crew on that specific flight.
You know this how?

The airline stated that it wanted to reposition them to Louisville to operate some other flight, i.e., they were not operationally necessary for this flight.

I haven't heard anybody in a position to know anything, make the claim that there was no other way to get them there. The claim that an entity with the financial and operational resources of UAL, at ORD, couldn't find some other way to get them there, properly rested and on time, is ludicrous.

[crewmeal]

if you want to know, you'll have to wade through the thread.

I was trying to avoid all the bs that's been spouted on here. Anyway here's a real screamer from about 2 years ago. Similar situation?

United Express passenger filmed being kicked off a plane whilst swearing at police | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3199930/Shocking-moment-woman-kicked-plane-screaming-swearing-police-refusing-dog-snapping-crew-pet-carrier.html)

[DingerX]

It's refreshing to hear from someone who's worked for the regionals and has now gotten enough sleep to be able to join a thread full of Phoenix Wright lawyers.

Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.

I will agree that is how the UA and Republic treated it, and that's probably the mentality that many of the people who have been derided on this thread have. But that is a non-obvious assumption, since the documents posted here make a clear distinction between "denied boarding" and "removed from aircraft", and they have different criteria.
Clearly, it's in the interest of the operators to have "boarded" count for revenue purposes as early as possible (e.g., when the ticket is scanned at the gate, and the machine registers "boarded"), and for denied purposes, as late as possible (e.g., anytime before V1).
Company policy, even "Industry Practice" doesn't automatically make case law, and it's probably in the interest of the whole industry that this distinction be left vague, so that operators can interpret it in their favor.
In the US, to answer a question raised above, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Constitution (thank you Mr. Blackstone) and can be invoked in both criminal and civil cases. In civil cases that are complex and involve two corporate parties, the right is usually waived. In a Joe-Public-vs.-Big-Corporation Tort case, Joe Public often wants his jury. When you hear of massive awards in civil cases (like "1 day's revenue from all the McDonalds in the world), it's often a jury decision (then, on appeal, the whole thing gets knocked down).
The victim here is allegedly a poker player, and a fairly wild one at that. So while the smart move would be to settle quickly for a large sum of money, he and his legal team might be willing to risk the expense of a jury case to get a massive award, which they can then use to negotiate a better settlement in exchange for dropping the appeals.