USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

[Ambient Sheep]

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.

At least one report I've read states that after the first couple volunteered (thus two more seats needed), the third person to volunteer was indeed the doctor's wife, the doctor himself only refusing once he realised that the flight they were going to put them on was the following afternoon, not later on the same evening.

So I assume that the woman seen running down the aisle after him is indeed his wife.

[p.j.m]

Good to see UA being held responsible by the use of Social media and phone video footage.

No way their PR spin doctors could get away with denying everything and blame the passenger.

[Koan]

It's a ONE hour flight FFS, how urgent was it.

That is a good question. Everyone seems to be fine with the crew taking a 5 hour van ride. Lets say you are on the Monday morning flight from SDF-ORD connecting to say HKG. You have a confirmed ticket. Now your flight to Chicago is delayed 5 hours meaning you will miss your connection to Hong Kong. You have to stay in a hotel one night. The Tuesday flight to HKG is full, you know you are now on standby for that flight, not confirmed.

How many days are you happy to be delayed in Chicago because one passenger refuses to comply with a valid instruction to deplane, thus allowing you crew to get to the hotel in SDF to get their required rest so you can get out on time?

[dsc810]

Can someone tell me what happened after all the scuffle?
Did an airline employee take the now vacated seat?
Did the flight leave "normally"?
There are some reports that the said evicted passenger then returned - if true and it seems unlikely this is the most bizarre aspect of the case - did they just let him go outside the plane and then he simply walked back on and if so where did he sit or was it just to retrieve his hand luggage.

Frankly if anyone offered me $800 to leave I'd regard it as a joke, given the consequential knockon losses to me and other costs including loss of opportunity I'd likely incur as a result of not being on the flight.
Add a zero on the end and I'd go.

[CCGE29]

The passengers were de-boarded so that the aircraft could be sanitised. When the UA crew did arrive at the aircraft they were 'booed' by the passengers and the flight finally arrived in SDF nearly 3 hours late.

[DaveReidUK]

Can someone tell me what happened after all the scuffle?
Did an airline employee take the now vacated seat?
Did the flight leave "normally"?

Most reports suggest that the flight finally left after a delay of a couple of hours with the DH crew on board (and being given a hard time by some of the passengers, which seems a tad unfair as it wasn't the crew's fault).

[Koan]

Read the fine print it is all in the contract of carriage. Wow, with cheering on Booing the crew who were instructed by their Crew Scheduling department to DH on a certain flight, who would face certain discipline up to and including being sacked for refusal. I'm done with this thread. I thought this was a professional pilots forum.

[SMT Member]

How many days are you happy to be delayed in Chicago because one passenger refuses to comply with a valid instruction to deplane, thus allowing you crew to get to the hotel in SDF to get their required rest so you can get out on time?

You are trying to push the responsibility for the problem of an airline over to its customers. That's not how it works. If your operation has, for whatever reason, taken a tumble, you don't attempt to save the itinerary of one customer by screwing over the next one.

UA had a phalanx of options available to them for getting that crew in place, in time; they chose what they thought was the cheapest and the path of least resistance.

And lets dispense with the 'valid instruction' BS; the instruction was neither valid nor legal. It was an ill-advised attempt at saving a few bucks by screwing over paying customers, nothing more or less.

[DaveReidUK]

The idea of offering vouchers seems more than a little absurd.

Offer $800 cash and you might get more takers.

As pointed out more than once in this thread, a passenger can insist that denied boarding compensation be made in cash rather than vouchers or flights.

Airlines typically forget to mention this and trade on passengers' ignorance of the rules.

[mickjoebill]

Was the passenger arrested?
If so, was he charged with resisting arrest?

[Less Hair]

Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?

[robdean]

UA have the eyes of the world on them right now.
The quibbling about T&Cs, captain's discretion etc. is, for them, like arguing what piece the band should play whilst the ship goes down.
If, whilst at the top of the news cycle, they were to publicly and unconditionally offer this guy $1,000,000 by way of apology/compensation it would *pragmatically* be money very well spent. They'd likely get it back in stock value before they had time to sit down.
(BTW, please no blah about setting 'precedent' unless you are a lawyer: the worst precedent to set is avoiding doing something smart for fear that someone might demand you do something stupid later on on the basis of bad analogy).

[SnowFella]

Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?

Not that I'm in the know here, just read this during the day. There is no maximum permissible compensation, however there is a minimum permissible compensation.

[alwayzinit]

I have been watching the various issues of this story slowly leach out and the whole cause incident seems to come down to the inability of those who have screwed up to admit it.
Meaning, why was the attempt to get volunteers not fully explained, as NOT a simple case of overbooking, it was an operational issue to move crew around the network to operate another flight.
Had the full ramifications of the over book/DH need, been made public maybe, just maybe, the required offloads would have put their hands up.
However, the events that panned out were appalling, truly appalling. Complete overreaction by the security staff and a total nightmare that could have been avoided, had common sense been used.:ugh:
Were there no seats blocked in the computer for the DH crew?
Were the gate staff not doing a manual count?

[framer]

At the end of the day there were most likely several people onboard who would have gladly got off the aircraft for a $300 cash and a night in a hotel. Seems pretty inexpensive now doesn't it. Go the accountants!

[DaveReidUK]

Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?

In fact it's not at all clear whether they can "throw people out" at all (except for a small number of specific safety-related reasons, none of which applied here).

There is no maximum permissible compensation, however there is a minimum permissible compensation.

And, more relevantly, there is the level of compensation that is necessary and sufficient to induce the required number of passengers to willingly give up their seats. That number always exists, United were simply too cheapskate to pay it.

[Just another SLF]

Read the fine print it is all in the contract of carriage. Wow, with cheering on Booing the crew who were instructed by their Crew Scheduling department to DH on a certain flight, who would face certain discipline up to and including being sacked for refusal. I'm done with this thread. I thought this was a professional pilots forum.

Indeed. But there are also many people here whose custom pays the wages of said Professional Pilots, crew and the rest of the industry. We have both a genuine interest in the industry and the right to make our feelings known when we feel it (or parts of it) needs a monumental kick in the pant, as it does here.

[parabellum]

an aggressive Police Officer batter the customer and drag him unconscious down the aisle, bleeding, is NOT part of their job.....

The individual that did the physical stuff was wearing jeans and dressed like a security guard, not a police officer.

[robdean]

The individual that did the physical stuff was wearing jeans and dressed like a security guard, not a police officer.

Whether he was dressed as a central-casting cop or in clown shoes and a rainbow wig really doesn't have all that much bearing on the liabilities in this incident.

[parabellum]

Whether he was dressed as a central-casting cop or in clown shoes and a rainbow wig really doesn't have all that much bearing on the liabilities in this incident.

You have missed the point, the reference to which I referred was wrong in all respects, police were not battering a passenger unconscious.

[Ambient Sheep]

It now appears (https://twitter.com/_ClaireConnelly/status/852036052286033921) that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.

Apparently the airline grab-and-drag victim's full name is David Thanh Duc Dao, medically registered in New Orleans, LA; whereas the guy named in the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure letters is David Anh Duy Dao, registered in Elizabethtown, KY.

It's just possible that it's the same guy who's cheekily registered himself in two different states using different spellings of his middle names... or just possibly someone's now due a libel payout on top of all his other compensation...

[robdean]

It now appears (https://twitter.com/_ClaireConnelly/status/852036052286033921) that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.

If so, a few incautious posters on this thread might need to look to their wallets.

More (hearsay):
David Thanh Duc Dao, MD vs. David Anh Duy Dao MD
https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/64s1mm/united_airlines_tries_to_a_smear_campaign_against/

[Icarus2001]

It's not at all obvious that a passenger refusing to move to free up a space committing any offence,

Completely in your mind.

It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.

So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.

As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.

[robdean]

Completely in your mind.
I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew.

Absolutely right. But in this case the only instruction the otherwise perfectly behaved passenger disputed was the instruction to arbitrarily get off the aircraft. Are you suggesting you could tell a well behaved passenger to go screw themselves and then completely legitimately throw them out should they refuse to comply?

The captain's role and authority is one factor that will be considered in court. It will be far indeed from being the only one.

[SW1]

Completely in your mind.

It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.

So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.

As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.

was he smoking an ecig or drunk- no! So what offence had this man-commited? Refusing to give up his seat? which he had paid for and had a legitimate reason to stay on board.

why did they not try and find another pax to deplane? Using command authority in this situation was the worst call and will ultimately cost the airline(the commanders employer) dearly!!

Legal instruction relates to safety this was not anything of the sort..

my aircraft( its not yours its your employers)- Please!!!!

[Shadowcaptain]

He is a paying passenger not a recruit in boot camp. This used to be a services industry. Where did all the customer orientation go to? Is this really what operational excellence means?
I think a credible reboot is needed know. Nobody will wait until end of april.

It's an industry that has got the idea in its head that customers only care about low prices, therefore they prioritize cost cutting above everything, customer service included. Overbooking, shipping your deadheading crew as cheaply as possible, limit amount to offer to pax for off-loading, or whatever else, is just a result of this mantra - Be as efficient as possible. It's a dangerous game to play - a race to the bottom. But dark things lie in the bottom of this pit. Things that should keep every CEO up at night.

[slats11]

The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." John Dalberg-Acton.

Authority, yes. But this authority has limits. Too many people here purporting (and hopefully only purporting) to be pilots don't appear to recognise there are limits. Maybe you have watched "Catch me if you can" too many times.

Surprising that some pilots are rushing to suggest they would accept responsibility for this and that they are in charge and nothing happens without their consent....... Because any sensible person would run as far and fast as possible from any responsibility for this disaster.

Hopefully the PIC was oblivious and doesn't take the fall. Because someone certainly is.

Someone will have already determined that all possible defendants will be joined in this action. That is already locked in. This is legal SOP and necessary if the case goes to trial and some evidence emerges that points the finger at some party - you want that party to be present in court as a defendant. This case isn't going to trial however. But you still want all possible defendants joined - there is a $ figure which will settle this, and the more defendants the less each one has to contribute and the easier to reach that figure.

The LEO know how bad this is - they have already stood someone down pending investigation.

The aviation people have much less situational awareness. In some ways it is not really their fault (although it is now their problem):
1.Airline staff have had a lot of leeway in a post 9/11 world, and they have used (and abused) this. They can be rude and offend and belittle a pax. If the pax becomes belligerent, they are deemed a security issue and dealt with. I think this attitude of power imbalance is cultured at the Flight Attendant factory - and some of the young cabin crew are susceptible to this power trip. For years now, they have got away with behaviour that simply would not be tolerated in any other customer service industry. Be honest here - how many of you would tolerate being treated in a restaurant the way your company treats your pax (the ones that make you profitable)? Every pax understands safety and security and emergencies. And every pax knows these justifications are over-used and abused every day. Every judge and every jury member will have endured over-officious airline staff - and the lawyers involved will know this. Yet another reason this case is never seeing the inside of a court room.
2. Airline staff have not had to deal with their actions being recorded on phones to the same extent as other industries. Police, EMS, teachers etc have all learned this lesson the hard way. Police know that every arrest or altercation will be recorded - and then edited as necessary before youtube. Aviation will catch up and learn this lesson - I suspect this incident was lesson 1.

This was handled extraordinarily poorly by all concerned. You couldn't have made this up 2 days ago.It completely got out of hand and spiralled out of control - because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency. And there will now be a very expensive day of reckoning. And this case will be cited as a textbook case of "How not to...." for many decades to come.

If some of you here really are pilots, I sincerely hope you never fly me or my family. Because I won't trust you with that responsibility while you cling to this delusion of absolute power.

[Basil]

As all commissioned officers SHOULD know: there is a difference between a LAWFUL and an UNLAWFUL command. Which this was appears to be open to debate.
As has been said: 'Should have a few lawyers salivating'. :)

[rusty shackleford]

UAL Stock Price - United Continental Holdings Inc. Stock Quote (U.S.: NYSE) - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ual)

The stock price has barely moved. This is the true scandal here.

United is impregnable on many routes - the merger with Continental should never have been allowed to happen. Along with the likes of Walmart, Citibank and Comcast, through the utterly corrupt political system now in place in the USA, trusts are on the rise. Domestic carriers in the USA are now pseudo-trusts.

All this guff upthread about being in a consumer market, people voting with their feet etc, is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Stockholders understand though.

That you can batter one of your customers, have it seen around the world, and your stockholders continue on as if nothing has happened? Citizens United really has made big company's utterly untouchable.

[SMT Member]

It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions.

As has been pointed out numerous times, it's only when the instruction is lawful that disobeying is an offence. In this case there is serious doubt the instruction was legal, hence disobeying is not an offence.

Unlike what some here have been postulating, you're not devoid of rights once you enter an aircraft. Quite the contrary, actually.

[Basil]

If some of you here really are pilots, I sincerely hope you never fly me or my family. Because I won't trust you with that responsibility while you cling to this delusion of absolute power.
I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.

[Planemike]

slats11......

A good summing up........

[ayroplain]

Brilliant and accurate post slats11.

because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency.
The airline industry, especially in USA, is full of it (and themselves).

[slats11]

Basil

the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.

It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.

I don't think any of these applied in this case.

Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.

[olster]

Pilots interpreting the law? Good one. And please lay off the 'my aircraft' guff. The commands have to be lawful to start with. The aircraft is on the gate and belongs to United. I have personally witnessed an over enthusiastic cabin person shouting at a passenger for using the wrong class of toilet ( United). And finishing off with 'haven't you heard of 9/11?' This is a grotesque use of 'power' to invoke such a tragic event to enforce petty rules to back up cabin crew interpretation of the 'law'. The correspondent who said that a backlash in the way customers are treated is on the way is spot on. He / she has recognised that for example a 300 dollar bill paid in a restaurant will have you treated like a king but a 300 dollar airline ticket means treating the customer like dirt. Karma is en route.

[GearDown&Locked]

Hindsight and all that, let’s assume (bad word choice I know) that the order to deplane IS lawful under those particular circumstances, why not deplane everybody?
Why go after a single seat forcefully (target fixation), when it should have been easier to sort things out at the terminal, and when ALL pax were supposedly under the same obligation to deplane if given the command to do so (as they were later while they had to sanitize the aircraft).

Case study gold material.

[mm_flynn]

I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
While I have always believed what you have said is true, I can't seem to find where that is written. In the US I can see

121.317 (k) Each passenger shall comply with instructions given him or her by a crewmember regarding compliance with paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (l) of this section. which is basically compliance with direct safety instructions.
§ 125.328, 91.11, 121.580, 135.120 Prohibition on crew interference.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part which seems to be used to prosecute people who are actively being a pest or hazard and refuse to stop.
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. which is all about the pilot being the final authority on the safe operation of the aircraft and provides the authority to deviate from any rule necessary to achieve the safe outcome of the flight.



However, I can't seem to find anything that says the pilot can order Any action. The rules seem very focused on actions relevant to the safe outcome of the flight and the well being of the passengers.

In the particular case at hand, the crew possibly believed the flight was in operation and their duty was to get one more passenger off the aircraft to make room for the crew being re-positioned, making 121.580 relevant. Or possibly, just that they were in a commercial dispute (i.e. not relying on any safety or aircrew duty interpretation) and wished the police to remove their customer from their property.

[m0nkfish]

I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.

Assuming in this instance the aircraft had not moved under its own power then surely the captain is not yet solely responsible under ICAO and FAR regulations?

[Basil]

Basil



It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.

I don't think any of these applied in this case.

Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
Yes, that's what I said, referring to UK law.
I am not confident of anything which will happen in court and, as I said before, "if as reported, this was a disgraceful assault on a legitimate passenger who had legally boarded the aircraft and was not behaving in a disruptive manner"

[Basil]

Assuming in this instance the aircraft had not moved under its own power then surely the captain is not yet solely responsible under ICAO and FAR regulations?
I'd say, in this case, commanders authority is irrelevant. It appears that ground staff asked for the passenger to be removed.

Re all this guff about power-crazed captains: I never had a pre-departure incident of this nature in all of my career nor have I witnessed one.
Had it happened, I'd have advised the passenger of my wishes and also that it was much better to deal with me than with the police. As I say, fortunately, that decision never arose.

[slats11]

Re all this guff about power-crazed captains

I had always thought the real problem was younger cabin crew and ground staff - dizzy with their new found responsibility and authority and self-importance.

I had assumed the PIC were generally sufficiently mature and sensible (and recognised they had far too much at stake) to get into petty power games. That is certainly the case with the pilots I know. A lot of time, blood, sweat, tears and $ to get those wings, so respect the authority granted and don't overstep the mark.

However the attitudes of a few "pilots" here has been a disconcerting revelation. Maybe it really is an industry wide thing.

[Carbon Bootprint]

For those in the US, Munoz is supposed to appear on today's "Good Morning America" on ABC, which I believe starts in about 20 minutes (08:00 EDT, 07:00 CDT). It should be interesting to see if can manage a miraculous save or just dig a deeper hole. I'm at work so probably won't be able to watch (though I think it streams on abc.com), but I'm sure it'll be on YouTube before too long.

[framer]

In 20+ years I've never worked with or seen a " power crazed Captain" .
The " too much to lose" statement rings true. I'm certainly not going to push any boundaries unless it's to stop someone getting hurt.

[flash8]

In 20+ years I've never worked with or seen a " power crazed Captain" .

But those with huge egos bordering on something similar (esp. away from the ac). I have... infrequently but a few individuals come to mind.

From the videos it seems the Captain never left his seat - surprised me - if I heard shouting and screaming from the cabin at the gate I don't think I would act the same away.


I take FULL command AND resposebility off that aircraft , the safety and security if off it and all souls on it.

Absolutely.

[Harry Wayfarers]

This has to be one of the most interesting threads I have read on PPRuNe in a long time.

It would appear that customer service failed in favour of an attitude problem, the Flight Crew among st us have reiterated that the Captain was in command yet was nowhere to be seen in the video(s) whilst the guy that was paying his salary is receiving treatment in a Chicago hospital.

The CEO of United initially sang the praises of the staff involved ... right up until an adverse statement came from the White House at which point his underpants turned brown.

How about we all go out, buy a bag of popcorn, sit back and watch the fireworks whilst, as an industry as a whole, we wish the unfortunate victim a speedy recovery?

[slats11]

2 Hang on one second, let me get this straight.............



Yes do make sure you get it straight. And that things haven't been embellished or over-simplified or misrepresented by someone asking you to now support the tenuous position they have got themselves in....

Because you are 100% right, the buck will stop with you if other pax subsequently contradict your staffs version of events, or if awkward youtube clips emerge.

Understand its a difficult job. But beware hearing only half the story.

[DaveReidUK]

For those in the US, Munoz is supposed to appear on today's "Good Morning America" on ABC, which I believe starts in about 20 minutes (08:00 EDT, 07:00 CDT). It should be interesting to see if can manage a miraculous save or just dig a deeper hole. I'm at work so probably won't be able to watch (though I think it streams on abc.com), but I'm sure it'll be on YouTube before too long.

About to be featured on the BBC 1pm News in the UK.

[HEMS driver]

If so, a few incautious posters on this thread might need to look to their wallets.

More (hearsay):
David Thanh Duc Dao, MD vs. David Anh Duy Dao MD
https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/64s1mm/united_airlines_tries_to_a_smear_campaign_against/

Excellent! Dr. Dao's lawyers just added a zero to their bottom line. :ok:

[sensor_validation]

Is the thread title correct? IANAL and this incident was clearly post-boarding, and not even over-booking as it was clearly a late commercial decision to relocate crew. The Ts and Cs about being denied boarding are sensible -> last lowest status in out?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

Why would you ever select one of a couple travelling together? If he really is the poker player don't expect him to settle (out of court) for less than ill informed CEOs (aggravating damages email) annual salary!

United Airlines Passenger Suing? ? A Lawsuit Could Win Him Millions - Hollywood Life (http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-passenger-suing-david-dao-lawsuit-dragged-off-plane/)

[DaveReidUK]

Why would you ever select one of a couple travelling together?

How do you know they weren't selected as a couple ?

If the aim is to offload X number of passengers (where X > 1) then it would be fairly logical for the computer to nominate couples travelling together.

[Super VC-10]

It's not just United that have stuffed up on this one.

https://insiderlouisville.com/business/courier-journal-facing-national-backlash-from-story-on-troubled-past-of-man-forced-of-united-flight/

[DaveReidUK]

"The first thing I think is important to say is to apologise to Dr Dao, his family, the passengers on that flight, our customers, our employees.

That is not who our family at United is, and you saw us at a bad moment.

And this can never - will never - happen again on a United Airlines flight, that's my premise and my promise."

[BluSdUp]

Was the Jumpseats used or not?
Anyone?

[TowerDog]

And here is the other side of the story:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

[BusAirDriver]

No the Jumpseat is not good enough for the crew, they rather have a paying customer DRAGGED out!

Go figure!

To the Pilot-Wife Story, was utter nonsense! Thats not the OTHER side of the story!
This passenger had not been denied boarding. Reading the CoC, it does not specify the procedure for this, passenger already boarded and is not disruptive.

[Super VC-10]

The writing's on the wall. Munoz says he will not resign.

United Airlines boss Oscar Munoz will not resign - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39580112)

[BluSdUp]

I understand there is difrent union deals with regards to DH crew for duty and JS for commuters. Can anyone enlighten us on the practice in US generaly and United especialy.
Would be very interesting to know.
Thanks

[aox]

And here is the other side of the story:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

If there’s one thing I have learned over the years, it’s that there are always two sides to every story.

Slight underestimate there. There can be plenty more than two sides to a story.

[Planemike]

No the Jumpseat is not good enough for the crew, they rather have a paying customer DRAGGED out!
Go figure!
To the Pilot-Wife Story, was utter nonsense! Thats not the OTHER side of the story!


That was my reaction too............. Trying to defend the indefensible...

[hoss183]

Quote Munoz
"This can never, will never happen again on a United Airlines flight," he said.
He was asked what the company would do in future if a seated passenger refused voluntarily to leave an overbooked plane based on the airline's compensation offer.
"We're not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off," he said, "to remove a booked, paid seated passenger, we can't do that."
Mr Munoz was asked if Mr Dao was at fault.
The chief executive paused.
He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period."

[Jet II]

Surprising that some pilots are rushing to suggest they would accept responsibility for this and that they are in charge and nothing happens without their consent....... Because any sensible person would run as far and fast as possible from any responsibility for this disaster.


Quite - for all the John Wayne types around here declaring that their decision is Law I suspect the Captain involved here will be running away from this fiasco as fast as possible screaming 'nothing to do with me guv'

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

this has been quite a hot topic for discussion at work.

What I find disturbing about all of this is that some of those condoning the actions that day are quite possibly involved with the training and mentoring of airline staff or indeed in none airline industries that have an interface with the public. That is a worrying thought.

I have yet to see ANY justification for what occurred and will be interested to follow this story to its conclusion; I have a feeling that may take a while.

[SLF3]

Well, it took him a while, but it looks as though he got there.

Lets hope some of the posters on this thread catch up with him.

[Planemike]

Yes, one wonders why those words could not have been uttered 24 hrs ago....

[Jet Jockey A4]

So the CEO of UA said the following on TV...

"to remove a booked, paid seated passenger, we can't do that."

Mr Munoz was asked if Mr Dao was at fault.

He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period."


Case closed... Time to settle the monetary side of things with the doctor.

[unworry]

29 pages in, can we finally agree that our passengers deserve first and foremost to be treated like human beings?!

[Less Hair]

Time to settle the monetary side of things with the doctor.

Two or three digit?

[Jet Jockey A4]

And here is the other side of the story:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

The wife should just shut up and go back to her kitchen!

[Planemike]

Bit harsh but she certainly is off track......

[HEMS driver]

United now admits that this flight was NOT "overbooked."

[fenland787]

"Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this," he wrote. "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 above and beyond to ensure we fly right."Quote Munoz

The chief executive paused.
He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period."

My, what a difference a day makes........

[Cloudee]

To all those on this thread that argued the passenger was in the wrong; you lose! The CEO has caved. Pax wins
The power of the camera phone is amazing.

[PeetD]

...and if he had just walked off the aircraft as he was unfairly asked to do, he would have been a day late to work and UAL would have comped him a few hundred $$ and carried on treating their customers as freight. The Dr has done us all a service and airline policy will change for the better and we can all stop being treated as mugs.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Two or three digit?

My bet is it will not go to court because UA will lose big time according to most lawyers interviewed on this subject.

UA will settle out of court for millions of dollars again according to lawyers.

[slats11]

In fairness, the CEO may have initially got a slightly distorted account of events. Anyone who tried to CYA and leave his exposed may be feeling nervous right now.

From the outset he did say they would investigate what happened. 24 hours later he has given quite a different interview, apologised, and stated this will never happen again.

What more could he have reasonably done. Some years ago, this would have been good. The pace of social media and the 24/7 news cycle today makes it very hard to get out in front of a bad story. We could all look clumsy in similar circumstances.

[GearDown&Locked]

Mr. Muñoz caved in by the power of money i.e. UA shareholders. As we all know money talks, camera phones...

[BluSdUp]

Not overbooked, check.
Next question.
Was the jumpseat full. Ie used by the DH crew or not.
If not, we are looking at a somewhat silly mistake.
So , again , anyone. Does United demand DH crew to have PAX seat or do they also use Jump seat.

Anyone from United please inform us of Company SOP.

[Planemike]

My bet is it will not go to court because UA will lose big time according to most lawyers interviewed on this subject.
UA will settle out of court for millions of dollars again according to lawyers.

In some ways a shame, it would be good to see the matter tested in Court. I guess if United offer enough $$$$s Dr Dao will just walk away a much richer man. Probably be able to charter a biz jet when ever he flies in future....

[Jet Jockey A4]

United now admits that this flight was NOT "overbooked."

Yes, finally they admit it! However we already knew that and thus the argument this passenger could not be removed from the flight because he was already aboard and seated.

[HEMS driver]

In fairness, the CEO may have initially got a slightly distorted account of events. Anyone who tried to CYA and leave his exposed may be feeling nervous right now.

From the outset he did say they would investigate what happened. 24 hours later he has given quite a different interview, apologised, and stated this will never happen again.

What more could he have reasonably done. Some years ago, this would have been good. The pace of social media and the 24/7 news cycle today makes it very hard to get out in front of a bad story. We could all look clumsy in similar circumstances.

Actually, no.

Day 1 - We are very concerned and will investigate.
Day 2 - The passenger was belligerent and I support what our employees did.
Day 3 - Mea culpa, mea culpa, we were wrong...

[wiggy]

As a general point for that those shocked/appalled/mystified/spitting feathers over the fact that Deadheading Crew might just have an contractural entitlement to "proper" seats it is worth bearing in mind a few points: that in many airlines deadheading happens on Long Haul and Ultra Long haul services....12-14 hours on a jumpseat, minimum rest downroute, then operate back.....nope, not going to work. ..As far Shorthaul goes(and even on occasions Longhaul) at times and on some types there might be no spare cabin jumpseats, they are occupied by the "working crew" and as far as the flight deck seat(s) goes if "checking" is going one flight deck is occupied ( and on some types there is only one flight deck jumpseat). In short without "blocking" or prebooking or in some way reserving passenger seats for deadheading crew the whole operation starts to become fragile. Whether the use of a jumpseat was a last ditch option in this case TBH we don't know.

So whilst perhaps not relevant in this case but as a general point if some are now expecting an announcement that all dead heading crew are to be sat on jumpseats just to satisfy public relations you are probably going to be disappointed.

[Turbine D]

Since there appears to be significant confusion amongst the posters here, some of which are/should be in the know, here is United's contract of carriage, all 37,000 words including explanations in lawyer speak.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

[KelvinD]

UAL stock largely recovered intraday.
Well, it may be in for another kicking. United have done it again!
This time, they threatened a first class passenger with handcuffs if he didn't get off to make way for someone "more important".
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html)

[slats11]

Actually, no.

Day 1 - We are very concerned and will investigate.
Day 2 - The passenger was belligerent and I support what our employees did.
Day 3 - Mea culpa, mea culpa, we were wrong...

OK. 48 hours rather than 24. I obviously lost track of total elapsed time after seeing countless replays from different news services of an event in a very different timezone - some replays themselves were probably a day old.

The point is he has got to this point fairly quickly (couple of days), and he may (or may not) have initially been led astray by someone fearful this had all got out of hand.

7 days is generally considered a very rapid turnaround time for an urgent customer service complaint. Yes this incident was very high profile and hence very urgent. But it still takes time to get all the facts. Especially if there has been some CYA early on.

[Jet Jockey A4]

As a general point for that those shocked/appalled/mystified/spitting feathers over the fact that Deadheading Crew might just have an contractural entitlement to "proper" seats it is worth bearing in mind a few points: that in many airlines deadheading happens on Long Haul and Ultra Long haul services....12-14 hours on a jumpseat, minimum rest downroute, then operate back.....nope, not going to work. ..As far Shorthaul goes(and even on occasions Longhaul) at times and on some types there might be no spare cabin jumpseats, they are occupied by the "working crew" and as far as the flight deck seat(s) goes if "checking" is going one flight deck is occupied ( and on some types there is only one flight deck jumpseat). In short without "blocking" or prebooking or in some way reserving passenger seats for deadheading crew the whole operation starts to become fragile. Whether the use of a jumpseat was a last ditch option in this case TBH we don't know.

So whilst perhaps not relevant in this case but as a general point if some are now expecting an announcement that all dead heading crew are to be sat on jumpseats just to satisfy public relations you are probably going to be disappointed.

I think most if not all here will agree with you on this.

[aterpster]

The United States Senate is now involved.

[Less Hair]

Seats needed to transport crews must and can be planned ahead and reserved. Not just cleared whenever needed kicking off paying customers.

[Jet Jockey A4]

OK. 48 hours rather than 24. I obviously lost track of total elapsed time after seeing countless replays from different news services of an event in a very different timezone - some replays themselves were probably a day old.

The point is he has got to this point fairly quickly (couple of days), and he may (or may not) have initially been led astray by someone fearful this had all got out of hand.

7 days is generally considered a very rapid turnaround time for an urgent customer service complaint. Yes this incident was very high profile and hence very urgent. But it still takes time to get all the facts. Especially if there has been some CYA early on.

I can somewhat agree with your position except for his email to the employees of United. In this day and age of instant news he as a CEO should know better and surely think that his email would be made public.

It should have been better written and certainly not include anything about the passenger being at fault. Yes you can back your employees but be careful about how you go about it especially when the same day you say a full investigation of the event is under way.

[BusAirDriver]

It's taken 29 pages, result:
"Mr Munoz was asked if Mr Dao was at fault.

He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period.""

Some of us saw this after Page 1, others, well enough said, I am sure they will be writing the same drivel after it has reached 60 or 100 pages, that is the scary bit, that there so many who feel entitled!

It's a privilege to have this job, it's not your little personal toy do as you please, without the passengers there will be no jobs. There are some people who clearly have misunderstood the concept of SERVICE industry.

And as for the Captain, I would have given the same statement as Munoz now finally has done:

"He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period, he stays!"

Captain offers the Jumpseats to the DH crew, if they decline than that is OPS problem, simple.

The CoC is clear, there is nothing that covers the disembarkation of an already seated passenger. Either company offers more money to tempt passengers, or they need to find alternative ways, and the Jumpseat should be an option offered by the Captain to the crew.

If I declined sitting on the JS for positioning if this was only option, I would definitely be called in for Tea and biscuits when back at home base. This was not a LH to JS, I can understand for longer flights, not an issue. But these was extreme circumstances, and based on this you can also understand the reactions of the passengers towards the crew who came onboard. Not their fault, unless they was given the whole story and what options was available for them.

[aterpster]

Less Hair:

Seats needed to transport crews must and can be planned ahead and reserved. Not just cleared whenever needed kicking off paying customers.

Indeed they are for pre-scheduled deadhead. But, there are other times where it all happens quite quickly. For example, a flight experiences a serious mechanical condition at the gate or perhaps on taxi out. The flight is cancelled. But, the crew of the canceled flight now needs to be deadheaded with little notice to protect a downstream flight the same day. Some crew members might end up on the jump seat in such circumstances. But, some need to be placed somewhere in the cabin. It becomes an issue when the deadheading flight is full. But, in my experience it was always handled prior to boarding passengers.

[barit1]

United's website boasts they carried 146 million passengers last year.

And yet their CEO's immediate response to his customers could not be more tone deaf! :ugh: Need I go on?

[slats11]

I can somewhat agree with your position except for his email to the employees of United.


Yes in retrospect he did perhaps go out on a limb early on. Which does make me wonder if he had perhaps been led astray. Not saying this did happen, just wondering.

Agree always dangerous to only get one side or part of the story before declaring your position - and when you can't be sure what the investigation will reveal.

But the 24/7 news cycle and social media puts a lot of pressure to respond quickly. You simply have to trust you are being well informed. It can be a case of damned whatever you do. Imagine if he had criticised the crew and then found pax was at fault.

In politics you usually don't survive if you have led the boss astray - I think you guys recently had a senior government figure (NSA) resign over this.

[LodaGoda]

...and if he had just walked off the aircraft as he was unfairly asked to do, he would have been a day late to work and UAL would have comped him a few hundred $$ and carried on treating their customers as freight. The Dr has done us all a service and airline policy will change for the better and we can all stop being treated as mugs.

Well said PeetD.
He should be highly regarded that he stood his ground against the intimidation of the corporate bully and the croonies who don't have the slightest IQ to figure out that this case has nothing to do with their B/S CoC or their "operational crap".
It doesn't matter wether he is doctor, gambler, unemployed or "belligerent".
I am a doctor and if I was in his shoes, I would have felt the unfair treatment but I would have sucked it because my social status doesn't allow me to go low (that's what I would have convinced myself but actually it is just cowardness to face injustice).
If the law wasn't clear enough, So it must be so in the future.
If we love aviation and respect its value, we should do everything to help and guide other people to appreciate it, not despise it.
Don't be the bully, you will lose. Whoever justified these actions, please reconsider.

[unworry]

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

There's motive ... :ouch:

[neilki]

I had always thought the real problem was younger cabin crew and ground staff - dizzy with their new found responsibility and authority and self-importance.

I had assumed the PIC were generally sufficiently mature and sensible (and recognised they had far too much at stake) to get into petty power games. That is certainly the case with the pilots I know. A lot of time, blood, sweat, tears and $ to get those wings, so respect the authority granted and don't overstep the mark.

However the attitudes of a few "pilots" here has been a disconcerting revelation. Maybe it really is an industry wide thing.

The Gate Agent owns the boarding process. Republic; the operator of this flight is a decent and well regarded company. The crew, i have no doubt did not in anyway overstep their authority, I imagine the onboard crew were horrified by what happened.
However, sitting up front on US flights i see how this escalated. Deadheading Flight Crew can take the jumpseat, however, they have to leave the aircraft and clear the Cockpit Access security protocols and will loose their protected 'must ride' status. ON RJ's the jumpseaters are not part of the BOW, so could conceivably have to leave later based on W&B; and then are really in trouble. That's a missed trip.
A belligerent pax presents a very difficult situation for all concerned; and in the US my advice to anyone, no matter how strongly felt, is to comply with law enforcement. They work in an environment where their lives are on the line everyday, and sadly can treat people in a way thats indicative of the fear and anger in society at large. While they often see people having terrible days and it can shape their responses, they are generally very good indeed at handling tense situations.
Why someone with some degree of authority and tact wasn't brought on board is the biggest hole in the swiss cheese.
Sadly, calling law enforcement to deal with perceived disruptive pax is far from unheard of...
As an aside, United pax flying yesterday told me how hard the cabin crews worked to make people feel comfortable. The folks at the coal face are mortified by what happened.

[BluSdUp]

Oh Dear
I cant wait for the next Stag or Hen Party heading for Spain when asked to please settle down.
" You cant touch us, dude"
Thanks United, looking forward to full flights this summer.

I just printed out the Senate Committee letter and nailed it over my desk.
Good to see there is some common sense in US.
Or Airmanship, to use our term.

[Methersgate]

Were the DH crew Republic people or United people?

[neilki]

Wouldn't make any difference. Republic, by inference from reports

[Amadis of Gaul]

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.

You bring up a good point as regards most travel choices being made on price and pretty much nothing else. Which begs a bit of a "chicken or egg" question: which came first, the decline of service and the resulting price-focused shopping or price-focused shopping with the resulting decline in service? I honestly don't know.

Furthermore, to follow your logic, what happens when United later undercuts that competitor to whom everyone flocked? Will they flock back? I've seen it happen. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a customer say something to the effect "I swore never again to fly on X but they were $17.41 cheaper than Y, so..."

I'm exaggerating but you get the point.

Just food for thought.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Oh Dear
I cant wait for the next Stag or Hen Party heading for Spain when asked to please settle down.
" You cant touch us, dude"
Thanks United, looking forward to full flights this summer.



Nothing to worry about, if they are being disruptive then they can be kicked off the flight; that has not changed.

What cannot happen is the quiet customer, minding their own business, suddenly getting "selected at random" to be ejected just so the company can resolve its own manning-planning cock-up. :ok:

[neilki]

Manning Planning.... Not likely a cockup. Deadheading happens all the time. I do at least one every 4 day.

[West Coast]

Yup, love the consternation here, people will continue to choose based on cost and to a lesser degree convenience. I as an airline pilot buy tickets when the family has to be somewhere on a timeline. That often times puts me on the competition's aircraft.

[slats11]

The crew, i have no doubt did not in anyway overstep their authority,

Well, you can't have it both ways.

You can't demand a pax get off just so staff can get on, threaten pax with LEO, contact LEO...... and then say we are not responsible for what happened next. The airline appear to have started this chain of events by deciding he needed to get off so they could get staff on.

As the CEO has confirmed, the airline can't kick someone off if s/he isn't doing anything wrong, and he has undertaken this won't happen again. So someone did overstep. Most likely that person believed they were correctly following policy and enforcing the rules....Only they weren't.

As stated previously, this escalated out of control because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibility and common decency.

The pax should probably have handled this better. But the general expectation in a customer service industry is that the professional staff should (and will) be held to a higher standard than an individual customer. Don't accept this? Simple, don't work in a customer service industry.

Anyway it appears this is just about all over. The court of public opinion is the fastest court in the land. Everyone simply needs to agree how many zeroes on the check.

[PDR1]

It's surely a matter of management (small 'm') Airlines codeshare and run close to capacity because the competitive market sets prices that need this to break even. Crew will need to DH for positioning - this is predictable. Any delay downroute can take crews beyond permitted duty hours at short notice, so there needs to be contingency planning.

In the past this was done by DHing at short notice and there was usually the spare capacity to accomodate it. But the airline needs a decent contingency plan for when there are no unsold seats available. I would suggest bumping passengers is a high-risk answer. I already have three airlines on my "not ever" list* and I'm thinking that UA is probably going to make it four for this reason. So what's the alternative?

Well a very brief chat with Mr Google reveals the large number of smaller GA airports around Chicago which have a lot of short-term charter companies available (and I'm only looking at anthying King Air or above). Were I the risk manager at an airline I'd be looking to have a call-off contract with many of these by which I could get needed crews flown from the smaller airport to a GA airport near the required destination at short notice. This would also provide me with an actual cost to feed into the risk calculations to trade agains the costs of keeping spare capacity and/or bribing passengers to accept bumping.


* Delta, AA and Ryan

[Airbubba]

So , again , anyone. Does United demand DH crew to have PAX seat or do they also use Jump seat.

Anyone from United please inform us of Company SOP.

Deadheading Flight Crew can take the jumpseat, however, they have to leave the aircraft and clear the Cockpit Access security protocols and will loose their protected 'must ride' status. ON RJ's the jumpseaters are not part of the BOW, so could conceivably have to leave later based on W&B; and then are really in trouble. That's a missed trip.

Again, maybe they can move crews around on the jumpseat in some places but it is not common in the U.S. in my experience. However, with the bankruptcies and give-backs in years past things like this are different at every carrier.

And, even if the pilots 'volunteered' to position on a cockpit jumpseat, it might not be feasible for operational reasons.

A belligerent pax presents a very difficult situation for all concerned; and in the US my advice to anyone, no matter how strongly felt, is to comply with law enforcement.

I'd give the same advice overseas as well. If I refused to deplane on, say KE, OZ, SQ, or LH and claimed I had squatter's rights under PPRuNe common law or something, I would expect things to escalate.

As someone wryly observed, all the sea lawyers here on PPRuNe, including me ;), will become accident investigators when the next plane goes into the weeds. :D

[WHBM]

Well a very brief chat with Mr Google reveals the large number of smaller GA airports around Chicago which have a lot of short-term charter companies available (and I'm only looking at anthying King Air or above). Were I the risk manager at an airline I'd be looking to have a call-off contract with many of these
This is the USA. There are a number of such executive charter operators operating out of O'Hare itself.

Someone above says that the USA "doesn't do this". Not sure why. Even Ryanair on their disparate network across Europe have three executive aircraft (dedicated, not charter) used to move both crews and parts/engineers around as required.

Regarding this being "inevitable" as people demand for the lowest fares, I have to say that over a longer term I find that US airfares have escalated more than elsewhere in the world, and more than general inflation.

Anyone knowing the industry would expect that Chicago O'Hare to Louisville in nowadays going to be an oligopoly, which it is, just American and United from their Chicago hub. Louisville is not a hub so nothing else from there. Both offer comparable, ever lower, standards of service. Both have progressively downsized, so such a route, which once had mainstream aircraft, is now wholly operated by commuter franchise operators. Both give some attention to their (higher spending) frequent fliers and to those connecting to their own trunk routes; little attention is given to others. Load factors go ever upwards - the passengers bumped were not going to be flown until the following afternoon, several flights later (and doubtless not mentioned at the time).

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Manning Planning.... Not likely a cockup. Deadheading happens all the time. I do at least one every 4 day.

Yes, deadheading happens all the time. The cock-up here was that the aircraft was boarded with the right number of paying passengers without taking into account at an earlier stage that 4 seats were needed for other crew. The re-allocation should have been done long before it got to this stage so yes, a manning-planning cock-up.

At what point did UA know it needed to get 4 from A to B? 5-mins before flight, 5 hours before flight? When was this requirement communicated to those that really ought to know?

[BluSdUp]

Cockpit Access protocol, Please explain.
In Europe I can put any company DH crew on any spare jumpseat any time.
Are you saying they may have gone with a DH tqt in PAX security and to go on jumpseat have to go at Crew security.
I must have that wrong!


SATCOS
Genuine offloads are no problem, it is the ones that think they just got more rights, that are going to be the problem. We just confirmed our basic rights as PAX. Nothing more.

Consider some already look at us as Glorified Taxi Drivers, GTDs, I hardly think this was helpful with regards to crowd control.

Some Airlines has been getting away with a lot in the name of safety and security and SOP.
Mr John Tune of the Senate Committee is not going to be happy to find out that the industry is falsely using the safety and security card, me thinks.

[West Coast]

Whipping boy

You've made your mind up on that aspect via the interent?

There are daily operational realities that lead to situations such as this. To categorically label this a cockup indicates you haven't considered that possibility.

[RAT 5]

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.

Let's go back to the root cause of this: it was someone in Ops/Rostering etc who decided this crew had to position ASAP and started the chain of events. Was the positioning crew on an emergency callout to salvage an a/c off schedule? Were they planned for this trip but someone forgot to book them confirmed tickets, and then it was an "Ooops' moment? Whatever, someone low down the food chain kicked this off. Someone gave an order to get the crew on board at all costs. That someone has smelly underpants. It could be that Ops sent the crew, and the station manager actioned the evict order under pressure from Ops. There were cheese slices here and the first hole was, perhaps, forgetting to book the crew from seats, then the decision to get the crew on board at all costs. There were opportunities to close the holes in the following slices, but people kept lining them up until Ka'boom. If it was so important to get the crew on board they should have boarded first and then the flight would be over booked. Pax could be 'volunteered' at the gate. For the crew to arrive last suggests a last minute call out; or was this another cock up? So many opportunities to have avoided this, but it seems there was no common sense leadership from anyone. No doubt there will be a lot of 'buck passing' in the internal enquiry. One wonders how high up the hierarchy will they choose the judge and hang-man. There will be more than one person falling on their sword, or praying the hangman is sick, including the out of work bouncers who over stepped their authority. The pax can sue UAL for $$ and then also the bouncers for general unprovoked assault. Imagine the scenario where a nightclub bouncer is told to evict a customer for being drunk and then wildly man-handles the wrong guy. The bouncer is also liable.
Guess this guy was unlucky to have an isle seat. The computer section must have also included this little nicety. Could this be the next program on 'Air Smash Investigation', or will it be 'Bloopers'? I suspect the boarding crew must have felt like pigs at a Jewish wedding. I haven't read anything about the actions, or not, of the operating captain. Maybe I missed them in the pages: or did he hunker down?

[West Coast]

Blu

That's Europe, it isn't the same here. Many unions have a requirement not to ride the JS as it makes it unavailable for commuters working their way to or from a trip. Many, myself included are domiciled in one city but live elsewhere. This happens by choice, or in my case the domicile closed underneath me requiring me to commute. Thus is the reason that the JS isn't used much if at all to transport DH crewmembers. Any airline that sticks on duty pilots in the JS risks leaving commuting pilots behind. This in turn puts the Airlines pilot's JS ability at risk as agreements between Airlines are reciprocal. If airline X puts DH pilots in the actual JS enough, the pilots who commute at airline X will be excluded from other airlines jumpseats.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is here.

[robdean]

It's refreshing to see that the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is asking very pointedly several of the questions many on pprune have been asking which certain others here have seemed to disdain.
In particular p3 onward:
http://www.pprune.org/attachments/rumours-news/2083d1492005839-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-us-senate-gets-involved-ual-incident.pdf

[Gauges and Dials]

I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual.


I'm torn between two responses here:


"You sweet, innocent child. What a charmed life you have led."
"In any group -- whether it's your soccer team, your social club, or your office, there's 'that guy.' If you don't know who in your group is 'that guy,' it's undoubtedly you."

[HEMS driver]

UAL's CEO Munoz named "U.S. Communicator of the Year" by PRWeek Magazine in March 2017. You can't make this stuff up. ;)

Article (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/04/12/united-airlines-ceo-gets-pr-award-before-dragging-drama.html)

United Airlines (UAL (http://www.foxbusiness.com/quote.html?stockTicker=UAL)) CEO Oscar Munoz was, until Sunday, enjoying some flattering coverage for his skillful work steering United out of some choppy skies.

“He took charge at a very difficult time when the previous CEO left under a cloud," said PRWeek Editorial Director Steve Barrett in an interview with FOX Business. "He reengaged staff; he got all the union deals done ahead of schedule which was unprecedented. Customers service levels were up."

And then came that video.

Barrett said the "horrific optics" were made worse by Munoz's clumsy and "tone deaf" initial apology. "He had to do something...faster and in a much better style than they did,” Barrett said.

Just last month, Munoz had been named PRWeek's "U.S. Communicator of the Year," r (http://www.prweek.com/article/1426909/united-airlines-ceo-oscar-munoz-named-prweek-us-communicator-year)ecognition of his work to galvanize the company and inspire his staff. But Barrett said those talents failed Munoz in his initial response to the dragging video.

[Airbubba]

This is the USA. There are a number of such executive charter operators operating out of O'Hare itself.

Someone above says that the USA "doesn't do this". Not sure why.

I don't have a copy of the Republic pilots' contract but for the United pilots I don't see any provision for deadheading on a charter flight or jumpseat.

The UAL ALPA contract is here and deadheading is covered under section 5-C:

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49135

[Cows getting bigger]

I as an airline pilot buy tickets when the family has to be somewhere on a timeline. That often times puts me on the competition's aircraft.


I guess your 'somewhere on a timeline' criteria can becomes a bit of a challenge, especially with United's over-booking policy? :)

[Turbine D]

There are daily operational realities that lead to situations such as this.
I would say poor planning would be a place to start. :hmm:

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Whipping boy



You've made your mind up on that aspect via the interent?

There are daily operational realities that lead to situations such as this. To categorically label this a cockup indicates you haven't considered that possibility.

Coast

I have made my mind up based upon:
What I have read on here.
What I have seen in videos.
What I have seen on the news - including the interview with Oscar Munoz.

Just like EVERYONE else who has made a comment - you included.

Anyone who thinks that a cockup did not occur is, quite frankly, deluded. Someone, somewhere failed to get crucial information to the boarding desk in a timely manner. Whoever decided on what to offer in compo to try and get volunteers got the numbers wrong. Whoever had the power to find alternate methods of getting the crew from A to B failed to look at all options.

In a way you are right; not a cockup but a series of cock-ups.

[West Coast]

On what you've read here. Enough said, no one is safe when social media is judge jury and executioner

[HEMS driver]

On what you've read here. Enough said, no one is safe when social media is judge jury and executioner

Denial is not a river in Egypt. The words of CEO Munoz live on TV are not social media, nor internet gossip.

[Mr Optimistic]

(pax). I think WC can only mean that the planning and circumstances which lead to the need to clear 4 seats after boarding, rather then before, was not necessarily a c*ck up.

Subsequent events weren't a c*ck up, they were a PR disaster.

This sort of situation, passengers boarded, need to release seats for operational reasons, can't be unprecedented as WC implies, so presumably training recognises that there may be occasions were inducement fail. Can I ask you professionals what the Plan B is to deal with this and when can physical measures on a passenger be requested?

As pax this information would be useful as I need to know when I should cower.

Do what's right, respect others and perform with excellence.

[albatross]

Even if justified and I do not say they were, the methods used to remove the supposed "belligerent" pax were seriously flawed.
The way his head impacted that seat rest ...I am surprised he was not more serously injured ..potential head trauma, neck injury.
Looked like bullies in a bar fight.

I would be not surprised if he is on the speed dial of a ravenous, slavering horde of litigation attorneys.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

It's refreshing to see that the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is asking very pointedly several of the questions many on pprune have been asking which certain others here have seemed to disdain.
In particular p3 onward:
http://www.pprune.org/attachments/rumours-news/2083d1492005839-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-us-senate-gets-involved-ual-incident.pdf

Nice find Robdean. I would suggest that a crucial question is missing though.

Q. When it was decided to include law enforcement to remove Dr Dao, what reason was given for his removal? Were the police simply told that a "disruptive and belligerent passenger needed evicting" or was the full picture given.

It may explain, but not justify, their heavy handedness.

[Mr Optimistic]

See HEMS eg post 46.

[HEMS driver]

Nice find Robdean. I would suggest that a crucial question is missing though.

Q. When it was decided to include law enforcement to remove Dr Dao, what reason was given for his removal? Were the police simply told that a "disruptive and belligerent passenger needed evicting" or was the full picture given.

It may explain, but not justify, their heavy handedness.

See Page 1, Paragraph 2.

[GearDown&Locked]

By the look of things in this forum, with all these law and absolute SOPs abiding aircrew, and all sorts legal reasons and fine printing to bump pax out of a plane, or downgrade them from business class to cattle hold under threat of being cuffed, I get the feeling that travelling by air inside U.S. is akin to boarding a bus in Manila: you never know what will happen next!

[flash8]

My thoughts.

United will NEVER let this go to trial for many reasons, firstly the publicity (the trial might be a year away) and secondly they are screwed if they lose or win. Lose... oh dear, Win... public sentiment will whip them more.

My bet, six figure settlement and gag order, United will be beating a path to his hospital bed with contract and check in hand.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Hems, Mr Optimistic. Thanks chaps.
I will be honest and admit I read on from page 3 as instructed by Robdean. I was worried that failing to comply with his instruction would get me kicked out of my living room ;-)

[Bealzebub]

This sort of situation, passengers boarded, need to release seats for operational reasons, can't be unprecedented as WC implies, so presumably training recognises that there may be occasions were inducement fail. Can I ask you professionals what the Plan B is to deal with this and when can physical measures on a passenger be requested?


There is no "plan B" but there are a great many sensible options you can employ to prevent this type of cascade management failure. Many of the options are simply common sense and you could come up with them yourself. Try asking nicely. Try asking somebody else. Contact operations and reverse the causal problem. Get the captain to explain the problem which often gets a result that perhaps it didn't earlier. If all else fails then you have a " technical" problem and may need to bite the bullet and deplane everybody, where the situation is subsequently sorted out in the terminal (where perhaps it should have been in the first place). There are so many options and most of them require common sense, flexibility, and good communication.

I would make the point that similar problems are an everyday occurrence and are dealt with utilising these very same resources by professional aircrew everywhere and everyday. When stubbornness and intransigence is simply met by digging heels in and showing whose boss you get the first management failure. When (very unusually) you get a cascade failure, the danger is that something like this will result.

[dash34]

My thoughts.

United will NEVER let this go to trial for many reasons, firstly the publicity (the trial might be a year away) and secondly they are screwed if they lose or win. Lose... oh dear, Win... public sentiment will whip them more.

My bet, six figure settlement and gag order, United will be beating a path to his hospital bed with contract and check in hand.

... and from then on, passengers will refuse to get off when asked, and have to be manhandled, in order to get their settlements. :ugh:

[West Coast]

Satco

My airline is not relevant other than to say its not UA. Boycott UA all you want, there's at least a good chance mine will be flying you then, my bonus check being that much larger.

[Mr Optimistic]

(pax) Bealzebub, thank you, makes sense. I suspect you are right. The whole thing is depressing and for once I feel sympathy for a CEO. Tiananmen Square took this sort of authority to it's limits. If this is how the staff performed under minor aggravation, how would they respond in a serious situation in an accident?

[pax2908]

There is still the problem, that probably a few people thought they were following standard procedure? Is this "just" a PR incident or is it much worse than that? I am tempted to say, based on my impression from what I read, that this event calls for more regulation and maybe also a heavy fine (WAY above the "six-digit" figure) to set the example.

[G-CPTN]

... and from then on, passengers will refuse to get off when asked, and have to be manhandled, in order to get their settlements. :ugh:

Who caused this situation?

[Photonic]

This sort of situation, passengers boarded, need to release seats for operational reasons, can't be unprecedented as WC implies, so presumably training recognises that there may be occasions were inducement fail. Can I ask you professionals what the Plan B is to deal with this and when can physical measures on a passenger be requested?

This is the part that still makes no sense to me. This situation started with offers of compensation for people to give up their seat voluntarily. The airline can still raise the compensation amount until someone bites, and it will likely be far less than the cost of hiring a charter jet for the DH crew. Any passenger will understand and accept this way of dealing with the situation.

In this case, the airline stopped raising the amount past $800, and converted from a mode of asking for voluntary cooperation to involuntary removal by force.

How does this happen? Was someone too lazy to pick up a phone and ask management if they could go higher in the amount offered? Too much pressure to meet the departure time? It doesn't matter. No passenger will ever understand or accept this way of doing business. The airline has no need of a Plan B, as long as sufficient incentive is available for voluntary cooperation.

[Bealzebub]

If this is how the staff performed under minor aggravation, how would they respond in a serious situation in an accident? No. I have no doubt at all that they would behave professionally and impeccably. This seems to have been an "alignment of planets" in failure. Lessons will be learned and it doesn't in anyway correlate, in my opinion, to how any of the individuals operate normally. It is quite conceivable that individuals were all operating to what are often called "Standard Operating Procedures" and as any professional will tell you here, there are times (rarely) when the situation isn't standard and it requires a different approach.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Satco

My airline is not relevant other than to say its not UA. Boycott UA all you want, there's at least a good chance mine will be flying you then, my bonus check being that much larger.

Oh it is very relevant; as an employee you seem to strongly condone the actions in this incident. It would be nice to know which other airline to avoid. Your arrogance is astonishing; enjoy your paycheck.

Just like the personnel involved I have many other options for getting from A to B.

[Mr Optimistic]

Bealzebub. Well OK but this does seem like a mildly stressing situation in which a cascade of decisions were made that turned it into a global event and caused the boss of bosses to issue a mea culpa. This was not professional. It will be used in training courses to a room full of sniggering students for years. How impeccable behaviour and correct decision making gets to this point I don't know.

[joema]

...My bet, six figure settlement and gag order, United will be beating a path to his hospital bed with contract and check in hand.

A mere six figure settlement seems less than certain, considering the video documentation and other circumstances. E.g, the Chicago PD has previously had to pay $22.5 million in a misconduct case where the victim was mistreated but not physically assaulted by law enforcement: Chicago to pay $33 million to settle 2 cases of police misconduct - tribunedigital-chicagotribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-15/news/ct-met-chicago-police-abuse-settlements-0115-20130115_1_eilman-case-police-misconduct-christina-eilman)

We don't know the extent of injuries to Dr. Dao when law enforcement slammed his head into the armrest -- only that there was blood everywhere requiring a cleanup team before the plane could depart.

About 20,000 people in the US die every year from falls in the home, many where their head strikes a wall, a table or other object. That's from just falling down, not because they were thrown down.

This could have actually been much worse. Dr. Dao could have been killed or permanently disabled. Even worse scenarios than that were possible. Imagine if it was his wife being slammed around, and if instead a diminutive elderly man he was a hulking ex-marine? He sees his wife slammed against an armrest, knocked out and laying in a pool of blood. It doesn't take much imagination to envision various escalation steps which would lead to further tragedy.

[etudiant]

It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that the airlines have some sort of disincentive against 'excessive' overbooking compensation awards built into the compensation structure of the relevant staff. That might explain why the offer of compensation stopped well short of the voluntary minimum authorized by law.

[Mr Optimistic]

(pax, obviously). Or you could just treat your customers as just that, customers. Failing that just treat them as human beings.

[JetpoweredMigrantWkr]

Well said! It costs nothing to be decent human being.

[portmanteau]

Wonder if this event will be subject to ICAO Annex 13 procedures? If so in due course we could all get to see every last detail.

[Airbubba]

Looks like United is already taking steps to quickly resolve the matter :ok::

United to refund ticket cost to Flight 3411 passengers

Wednesday, April 12th 2017, 3:29 pm EDT
By Charles Gazaway, Digital Content Producer

LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - The passengers who witnessed a man being forcibly removed from a Louisville-bound United Airlines flight are going to get their money back.

In an e-mail to WAVE 3 News, United Airlines media relations said, "All customers on flight 3411 on Sunday, April 9 are being compensated for the cost of their tickets."

PREVIOUS STORIES
+ United: Airline won't use police to remove passengers
+ Passenger removed from flight ID'd as KY doctor with troubled past

Flight 3411 was boarding at Chicago O'Hare Airport when United employees asked for four people to voluntarily give up their seats. Passengers were told the flight was overbooked and four United employees had to be flown to Louisville for their shift on Monday.

NBC Chicago has reported that the passenger forcibly removed, Dr. David Dao, 69, of Elizabethtown, KY, agreed, along with his wife, to take the offer of $800 each from United for their seats and take a later flight. The confrontation took place after the Daos learned there was not another flight that would get them to Louisville until Monday.

Witnesses said Dao told employees that he was a physician and had to get home to see patients on Monday.

Dao remains in a Chicago hospital where he is undergoing treatment for injuries suffered during his removal from the plane.

United to refund ticket cost to Flight 3411 passengers - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports (http://www.wave3.com/story/35135187/united-to-refund-ticket-cost-to-flight-3411-passengers)

[DaveReidUK]

Wonder if this event will be subject to ICAO Annex 13 procedures? If so in due course we could all get to see every last detail.

Already discussed. No, Annex 13 doeosn't apply.

[Harry Wayfarers]

This is the part that still makes no sense to me. This situation started with offers of compensation for people to give up their seat voluntarily. The airline can still raise the compensation amount until someone bitesBut is this the rule applicable only to when a flight is overbooked because, as I have read, United have admitted that the flight wasn't overbooked and we all know the truth, that United were utilising the flight as a means of crew transport.

Now, as an ex crew scheduler there are a few possible scenarios of when that crew became scheduled to position from A to B:

1. It was a regular weekly crew rotation but a cock-up prevented the seats from being blocked-off, or:

2. There had been an operational problem, perhaps a crew going out-of-hours or a change of aircraft type, and this positioning crew had been called out from standby at their homes some hours before this flight was departing, or:

3. As per 2. except this positioning crew had been on airport standby duty and were called, quite literally, minutes before this flight was departing and with passengers already boarding.

I don't favour 1. or 3., my favoured is 2., that the crew had been called out from standby at home, I'd guesstimate at least 2 hours before STD, and somebody forgot, didn't bother, couldn't care, to notify passenger handling that their flight was going to be 4 seats short.

And would I be right in presuming that this happened over a weekend when no management may have been on duty to authorise a King Air or whatever?

[MarkD]

And here is the other side of the story:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/
I remember 9/11. Do you?
Things to consider - 0. No passengers, aviation gets a lot smaller. Yes, laws and conditions of carriage exist but they are not perfect instruments. Other jurisdictions have chosen stronger enforcement in favour of passengers.

[pax2908]

(pax, obviously). Or you could just treat your customers as just that, customers. Failing that just treat them as human beings.

Yes but this only addresses the extreme cases, and possibly front line staff will continue to be in impossible situations Customer Needs vs Company Standard Policy. I can only imagine that whoever decided he/she needed someone off the plane, was under such pressure that he/she is not the only one at fault. I am hoping that more details will be known.
Yes, use common sense, but how nasty the machinery behind can be? You will know better (maybe).

[Three Lima Charlie]

Did anyone else read on Monday that after Dr. Dao was removed, the second time, the passengers were deplaned back into the terminal so the cleaning crew could take care of the mess? Saw the following reported in a local Louisville newspaper:

Powell said he and other passengers were in shock, but the worst part, for him, came when Dao returned to the plane and was cornered near the bathroom in the back - closer to Powell's students. "I'm thinking to myself, 'Nothing good is coming of this,'" Powell said. "... I removed my kids from the plane, saying we don't need to see this stuff. We got up and left." The group was quickly followed by a father and his eight-year-old daughter, who was crying along with one of Powell's students, he said. Soon after, the airline deboarded the plane to clean up blood from the incident.

It was reported that some passengers with small children refused to re-board the flight, and took travel vouchers from United for a later flight. Thus the flight 3411 departed two hours later, with EMPTY SEATS.

[SalNichols]

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors are considering a rule that would prohibit the use of SFPD to enforce policy decisions on the part of any airline. IOW, if you choose to deplane a passenger under overbooking circumstances, you get to do it...and you get to absorb the full liability of your decision.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Looks like United is already taking steps to quickly resolve the matter :ok::

United to refund ticket cost to Flight 3411 passengers - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports (http://www.wave3.com/story/35135187/united-to-refund-ticket-cost-to-flight-3411-passengers)
So it has already cost them several times as much as it would have done to bribe someone with a few grand to get off the flight. That's without the various lawsuits and the share price.


How on earth anyone thought that was clever is completely beyond me.


Look, if you offer $800 it'll maybe be jumped at by a foreign student who is bumming around the USA for a few months and it doesn't matter which day, or week, they get there, but if there ain't enough of them on the flight no professional is going to lose a night at home and a day at work for that little.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

front line staff will continue to be in impossible situations Customer Needs vs Company Standard Policy
There's this thing called "empowerment" which some employers, particularly in service industries, have come across. It's been around for quite a few years, now, actually.

[galaxy flyer]

Yup, love the consternation here, people will continue to choose based on cost and to a lesser degree convenience. I as an airline pilot buy tickets when the family has to be somewhere on a timeline. That often times puts me on the competition's aircraft.

Based the evidence here, buying a ticket is useless at actually guaranteeing a seat on set timeline.

[G-CPTN]

In the original circumstance where passengers were offered $800 to 'defer' - were they offered overnight accommodation? - or were they expected to cover that from the $800?
Were the displaced passengers given a guaranteed seat the following day? - or were they left to find their own onward travel out of the $800?

[lomapaseo]

So it has already cost them several times as much as it would have done to bribe someone with a few grand to get off the flight. That's without the various lawsuits and the share price.



Would it be worth it for me to hold out for ten grand to get off a flight the next time if I find myself being asked?

Somehow I suspect that all airlines from now on will have a nuclear option available that does not publicly go above today's going rate.

[Airbubba]

Looks like the attorneys are going after the CVR on the plane. Remember the naïve days when we were told that it could only be used for safety purposes?

Maybe moot in this case since the plane has probably operated several sectors since Sunday.

Cockpit cameras are just around the corner...

Attorneys for doctor yanked from United flight seeks to preserve evidence

Wednesday, April 12th 2017, 4:36 pm EDT
By Makayla Ballman, Digital Content Producer

CHICAGO, IL (WAVE) - Attorneys for Dr. David Dao, the man who was forcefully pulled off United Airlines flight 3411, have filed an emergency bill of discovery.

Dr. Dao is seeking to preserve the surveillance videos, cockpit voice recordings, passenger and crew lists, incident reports, and other materials related to United Airlines flight 3411.

Dr. Dao says it's "crucial and essential" that the materials be preserved. If they are not, he says he could face "serious prejudice."

Dr. Dao's request also seeks to require the city of Chicago, which operate O'Hare International Airport, to preserve the materials.

Dr. Dao, a family member and his attorneys will speak at a press conference on Thursday at 10 a.m (central time) in Chicago.

PREVIOUS STORIES
+ Elizabethtown doctor indicted on 98 drug charges
+ E'town doctor charged with dealing prescription drugs
+ Doctor arrested for unlawful prescription writing


Attorneys for doctor yanked from United flight seeks to preserve - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports (http://www.wave3.com/story/35135931/attorneys-for-doctor-yanked-from-united-flight-seeks-to-preserve-evidence)

[newfoundglory]

Wasn't it an $800 voucher ?

Has to be more, and only as cash in hand - Voucher is no good.

What gets me is, this situation should never occur.

You don't board people onto an aircraft, until everything is in order. Every pax has an assigned seat or is denied boarding if the flight is oversold.

You forcibly remove pax who are highly disruptive, or a danger to themselves or others.

You never deplane a seated commercial passenger - Ever.

I don't believe it matters too much what the contracts or terms, or even the captain says.

If you have paid for your ticket, checked in, received boarding pass and crossed the threshold of the aircraft door to your seat - it is too late.

It is total madness and too far into the performance of the contract to invoke some policy small print, or panicking and calling the police for help.

I do hope the police send a clear message to airlines that they will not become involved in such rediculous practices.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Would it be worth it for me to hold out for ten grand to get off a flight the next time if I find myself being asked?

Somehow I suspect that all airlines from now on will have a nuclear option available that does not publicly go above today's going rate.

If that is how it is put to you then yes, hold out but I suspect though that someone else might agree to leave instead of you for a much smaller sum of money. Almost an auction principle.

There will always be someone willing to leave for less. If UA had offered $1200 per seat they may have had 20 people to choose from.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

There will always be someone willing to leave for less. If UA had offered $1200 per seat they may have had 20 people to choose from.
So whose clever idea was it to stop at $800, then, and do they still have a job?


Instead of a few grand they've spent millions, which makes no sense at all - if they had budget authority for millions they would also have had budget authority for the few grand.

[HEMS driver]

Attorneys for doctor yanked from United flight seeks to preserve evidence

Wednesday, April 12th 2017, 4:36 pm EDT
By Makayla Ballman, Digital Content Producer

CHICAGO, IL (WAVE) - Attorneys for Dr. David Dao, the man who was forcefully pulled off United Airlines flight 3411, have filed an emergency bill of discovery.

What they really need are the recordings of the phone conversations between the airline and the airport police, and the recordings of the police radio communications between dispatch and the officers who boarded the flight.

[Blondie2005]

Looks like the attorneys are going after the CVR on the plane. Remember the naïve days when we were told that it could only be used for safety purposes?

Maybe moot in this case since the plane has probably operated several sectors since Sunday.

Cockpit cameras are just around the corner...



Attorneys for doctor yanked from United flight seeks to preserve - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports (http://www.wave3.com/story/35135931/attorneys-for-doctor-yanked-from-united-flight-seeks-to-preserve-evidence)

Stand easy, they're not after the crew, they're after United. This is straight from the playbook.

[galaxy flyer]

Claybird,

There is NO way UA Legal is going let this go to court. As to the Chicago Police, they have a long record of paying to victims of police bodily injuries--millions for less than this event.

[Airbubba]

Another development in the case, it appears that all three officers were indeed from the Chicago Department of Aviation, not the Chicago Police Department as some earlier reports said:

2 more officers placed on leave after passenger dragged off United flight

By Jessica D'Onofrio
Updated 12 mins ago
CHICAGO (WLS) --

The Chicago Department of Aviation says two more officers have been placed on administrative leave after a Kentucky doctor was dragged off a United flight Sunday.

One officer was placed on leave Monday, one day after the incident. CDA said it will not release the names of the officers.


2 more officers placed on leave after passenger dragged off United flight | abc7chicago.com (http://abc7chicago.com/news/2-more-officers-placed-on-leave-after-passenger-dragged-off-united-flight/1863988/)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

So whose clever idea was it to stop at $800, then, and do they still have a job?


Instead of a few grand they've spent millions, which makes no sense at all - if they had budget authority for millions they would also have had budget authority for the few grand.

No idea Gertrude, none of it makes sense in a commercial public-service world.

I figure the refund noted above will amount to around $30,000 - $40,000.
Add to that the compensation to Dr Dao and the loss in share value then and future losses due to reputation taking a hammering then $4800 to off-load 4 pax seems a bargain :O

[Gauges and Dials]

Would it be worth it for me to hold out for ten grand to get off a flight the next time if I find myself being asked?


Go ahead.

But I guarantee you that rather than offer you the $10K, they'll find someone else who'd be thrilled to deplane for $1,000 or maybe $2,000.

[Gauges and Dials]

And would I be right in presuming that this happened over a weekend when no management may have been on duty to authorise a King Air or whatever?

This is a major operational hub for an airline with a 24/7 operating schedule,, global operations, and nearly five thousand flights per day. The notion that there would be nobody on duty who could authorize alternative transport simply beggars the imagination.

[West Coast]

Stand easy, they're not after the crew, they're after United. This is straight from the playbook.

Unintended consequences. The CVR will be in the public domain, therefore the FAA is apt to listen to it. A well documented case at my airline had the FAA take note of a conversation prior to departure where the FO said he was tired and had considered calling off the trip. A number of hours later at the destination, ground personnel marshaled the crew into the gate and clipped the wing of an adjacent aircraft. This on the Captain's side. The crew was found not to be at fault, however the FAA went after the FO for flying fatigued, based off a comment on the CVR. Dismissed but not after many sleepless nights, pun intended.

[PAXboy]

Before saying that the pax could be legally asked to leave by crew - ask if he:
a) Knew that in advance (as very few pax know)
b) Was it explained to him that he had to leave?
Both are highly unlikely.

We know that United Breaks Guitars: 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars
And we know that, after being told to stop taking pictures - and COMPLYING - another pax was thrown off: 2013 Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures! - Live and Let's Fly (http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2013/02/19/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures/) (thre is a follow on story link at the bottom of the page)

As to the CEO: he made a standard CEO first response based on what he was being told. He will be telling his people that, next time, they'd better tell him the full situation.

I don't think he should lose his job but the media can afford to try and unseat him as the outcome is win/win for them.

Both of these events happened before Munoz took control. What he needs to point out is that NO ONE learnt a DAMM THING.

[West Coast]

simply beggars the imagination.

This because you have you blinders on. Chartering isn't something that's done in US part 121 flying. There are plan B and C, such as a later flight and delaying the departure the DH crew was to fly, if there is another crew at SDF already, alter their schedule, this being unlikely at SDF for a number of reasons. There isn't an established process to call some charter service and find out if there's a king aire hanging around doing nothing. Aircraft of that level are expensive and tasked pretty heavily to afford them, not a guarantee ones available.

[etudiant]

Unintended consequences. The CVR will be in the public domain, therefore the FAA is apt to listen to it. A well documented case at my airline had the FAA take note of a conversation prior to departure where the FO said he was tired and had considered calling off the trip. A number of hours later at the destination, ground personnel marshaled the crew into the gate and clipped the wing of an adjacent aircraft. This on the Captain's side. The crew was found not to be at fault, however the FAA went after the FO for flying fatigued, based off a comment on the CVR. Dismissed but not after many sleepless nights, pun intended.

Well, these are also consequences of the 'hear no evil. see no evil' approach that the entire staff took to this episode. Everyone will be put through the mill.
It is entirely possible that this event will trigger a more substantial review of the current airline rules. The US carriers operate oligopolies or monopolies on most routes, yet they are still regulated as if there were active competition.
Mr Munoz's recent about face and sudden shift from intransigent to apologetic probably reflects his belated recognition that the rules might be changed if the public is sufficiently outraged.

[Jet II]

I worked for Continental in London and we hired air taxis when needed to transport spares and Engineers all over Europe - a quick call to Maintrol in Houston was all that was needed as authorisation.

I'm just grateful that the guy wasn't wearing leggings - they would probably have shot him..

[Gauges and Dials]

This because you have you blinders on.


Many people have blinders on, including, apparently, the idiots in charge Sunday night who found themselves constitutionally incapable of thinking outside the box.

I happen to have spent time at the operations control facility for a major U.S. based carrier of the size we're talking about, and I guarantee you there is plenty of management discretion available to solve operational problems as they arise.

There isn't an established process to call some charter service and find out if there's a king aire hanging around doing nothing.

Well, that's just damn dumb, isn't it.


Aircraft of that level are expensive

And developing a reputation for involuntarily bumping paying customers (even if the result is merely a pissed-off customer rather than the fracas we see here) isn't also quite expensive?

[Gauges and Dials]

If, as stated by UA not enough pax took up the payoff option than is is clear that some would have to be bumped.

Really?

Here on my planet, if not enough pax took up the payoff option, then it is clear that the payoff offer would need to be increased.

[Gauges and Dials]

Looks like the attorneys are going after the CVR on the plane. Remember the naïve days when we were told that it could only be used for safety purposes?

Somewhat off-topic, but it wouldn't be all that hard to mount the argument that investigating an incident that resulted in a passenger in the hospital and blood all over the aircraft interior might be safety-related.

[West Coast]

Gauges

You may not agree, at least you finally understand the process. It'll be the one that's in place a week, a month and a decade plus from now.

[Gauges and Dials]

Stay on task, the point is about releasing the CVR data.

Generally, the pro-authority side's response to such concerns boils down to, "what's the matter, got something to hide?"

You've been pretty consistently making the pro-authority argument here. Feel differently when it's the CVR tapes?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

ie after boarding a requirement to move 4 staff appeared, and in order to allow perhaps 2/300 people to fly tomorrow 4 were required to deplane right now? ... If so the reason was sound and perfectly reasonable.
No, it was not perfectly reasonable, it was completely unreasonable. It was the airline's problem, not the passengers', and they should have found some other way to fix it. If you think this is "perfectly reasonable" I hope you're not in a service industry.

[Chesty Morgan]

There isn't an established process to call some charter service and find out if there's a king aire hanging around doing nothing.
Oh but there is. It's called a TELEPHONE.
Aircraft of that level are expensive and tasked pretty heavily to afford them, not a guarantee ones available.
Do you think the actual outcome has been cheaper?

[Airbubba]

Somewhat off-topic, but it wouldn't be all that hard to mount the argument that investigating an incident that resulted in a passenger in the hospital and blood all over the aircraft interior might be safety-related.

You may have a point. This may well be a reportable incident for the FAA even if the aircraft didn't move for the purpose of flight. Should the crew have pulled the CVR circuit breaker? Did they? It might depend on what is in Republic's ops manual. And often this conflicts with guidance in the other manuals like the ones that the United gate agents have.

And, I'm sure it's a TSA incident as well.

[mickjoebill]

Was he arrested at any point?

The passenger chosen to be dumped was slightly built, compared to some of the other passengers whom would be far more difficult to manhandle.

[galaxy flyer]

This because you have you blinders on. Chartering isn't something that's done in US part 121 flying. There are plan B and C, such as a later flight and delaying the departure the DH crew was to fly, if there is another crew at SDF already, alter their schedule, this being unlikely at SDF for a number of reasons. There isn't an established process to call some charter service and find out if there's a king aire hanging around doing nothing. Aircraft of that level are expensive and tasked pretty heavily to afford them, not a guarantee ones available.

Sad to say, my friend, but the blinders are on you or the industry. Priester in Chicago could have flown the crew to SDF, catered with a flight attendant for less than the denied boarding penalties and gas them there earlier. You need more "out of the box" thinking.

[West Coast]

Gauges

No, trying to educate people like yourself to the agreements and contracts established within the 121 environment. Just as you think it's stupid a king aire isn't called on short notice, a day one 25 yr old new hire pilot flying small turboprops could trip you up by pointing out that methods of transport are established via union contract, it's not up to some station management type to call the local 135 outfit and make arrangements. It's just the same with the CVR. There are agreements that regulate how CVR data is used. That's why this is going so slow, having to educate the uneducated. No harm meant, I'm sure I'd have a steep learning curve in a technical field outside of aviation.

[PAXboy]

However once selected this person clearly refused a lawful instruction from the crew to disembark.

As I've said, two posts before your own: Did the pax understand?

Did the pax know he HAD to respond to this be leaving? 99% says he had no idea of the legally binding nature of the instruction. Was he informed of this in plain words and he confirmed that he understood - BEFORE he protested. 99% says No.

[West Coast]

GF

Priester in Chicago could have flown the crew to SDF, catered with a flight attendant for less than the denied boarding penalties and gas them there earlier. You need more "out of the box" thinking.

Perhaps you don't recognize this is potentially contractually illegal. Methods of transportation are set out via contract, not via some station manger or at the crew desk level.

[Preemo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM

[West Coast]

Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.

[galaxy flyer]

I don't doubt the the UA PWA doesn't specifically allow for use of outside transport. Doesn't mean it could not have been considered; part of the next amendment negotiations; or, while not addressed, it could have been used out of the box. Have to look at the PWA. Certainly, a process with standards of service could be agreed on. Yes, I was on an MEC, so familiar with contracts. And, presently I audit and vet charter operators for high wealth people world-wide.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Gertrude, if you really believe that delaying 4 pax takes precedence over delaying 2-300 I really have to question not just your ability to understand what a Service Industry is, but also your sanity.

That's exactly the fake logic that makes this whole empty farrago Fake News
Nonsense.

(1) There has been no evidence presented that 2-300 would necessarily have been delayed, ie that it would have been beyond the laws of physics to get some crew somehow to the next day's plane without bouncing those four passengers.


(2) And if four passengers had to be bounced, the reasonable approach would have been to offer them some money in compensation (real amounts of real cash money, not peanuts in vouchers). At some price considerably less than the millions they have chosen to spend enough volunteers would have been forthcoming.

[West Coast]

GF

Anything has the potential to be negotiated in the future, that day however it wasn't an option.

[unworry]

Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.

this news.com.au article has the latest video
New video shows argument that led to United Airlines passenger being dragged from plane (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/new-video-shows-argument-that-led-to-united-airlines-passenger-being-dragged-from-plane/news-story/086a34ae08b0eb9f34beeea98a22e62b)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

If union rules prevent crew from flying a charter (there are plenty that operate out f O'Hare BTW and cost around $2000/hour for a good one) then put crew on the airliner and give the charter option to the bumped pax. Would still have saved money/reputation.

Just like to add for NoFly; I take it you believe that the interview with Oscar Munoz is fake news? Seems pretty clear to me that he agrees with the majority here that this should not have happened. He sums it up when he says that his staff have a lot of common sense but were prevented from using it.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.

Who cares? What's the point? We know he was asked to leave at some point.

However since he was already boarded and sitting in his seat minding his own business the cops had no right to ask him to leave especially when he had told whom ever at United he was a doctor that needed to be in Louisville the next morning to attend patients and that's the point!

The idiots at UA should have taken that into consideration and go to another person(s) on their list.

[West Coast]

JJ
Asking too much to stay up with even just the past few pages?

Who cares? The poster last page or so who asked if the doctor understood what was being told to him. The video proves yes.

[West Coast]

Depends on you definition of belligerence. Telling a cop you'll have to drag me off raises an eyebrow.

[aterpster]

The view of a retired assistant chief of the Los Angeles Police Department: It was not a matter for the police; it was a civil matter between UAL and the seated passenger.

Makes me wonder who will pay more, UAL or the City of Chicago?

FWIW, my wife has seen a lot of people interviewed on the street by Los Angeles TV stations who all say they will never fly UAL again. My wife takes that at face value. I don't. A month from now, or whenever, most of the Internet savvy folks will book the cheapest fare on-line, whatever carrier it may be. I'm speaking of the occasional traveler who is not a member of a carrier loyalty program.

[Jet Jockey A4]

this news.com.au article has the latest video
New video shows argument that led to United Airlines passenger being dragged from plane (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/new-video-shows-argument-that-led-to-united-airlines-passenger-being-dragged-from-plane/news-story/086a34ae08b0eb9f34beeea98a22e62b)

The video shows that the doctor was well behaved and also on the phone. He also tells the cop he's a physician and needs to be in the office tomorrow and because of this he tells them 3 times he won't get off the airplane...

How stupid is that cop and UA personnel standing there?

Again, United should have upped the deal or in this case seeing the doctor had a legit reason to stay onboard move on to another person on the list.

[Jet Jockey A4]

JJ
Asking too much to stay up with even just the past few pages?

Who cares? The poster last page or so who asked if the doctor understood what was being told to him. The video proves yes.

Yes, yes I have been reading and understand that some people were asking about the doctor's understanding of the matter.

I for one understand that the doctor did understand the situation and in fact he proves it himself by rejecting the $800 offer when he finds out that the next flight he will be on will be almost 24 hours later thus missing his appointments with patients the next morning... Is that so hard to understand?

Which brings me back to the really stupid people at UA (and the cop) that could not understand his position.

[Gauges and Dials]

Gauges

No, trying to educate people like yourself to the agreements and contracts established within the 121 environment. Just as you think it's stupid a king aire isn't called on short notice, a day one 25 yr old new hire pilot flying small turboprops could trip you up by pointing out that methods of transport are established via union contract, it's not up to some station management type to call the local 135 outfit and make arrangements. It's just the same with the CVR. There are agreements that regulate how CVR data is used. That's why this is going so slow, having to educate the uneducated. No harm meant, I'm sure I'd have a steep learning curve in a technical field outside of aviation.

I'm not, of course, arguing that they should have started calling random Part 135 operators out of the phone book, or paged the airport "Anyone here got a light twin we might borrow?", and your suggestion that that's what I or anyone else with knowledge of the industry is arguing, is obnoxiously condescending.

This is a global, sophisticated carrier with nearly 5,000 flt ops per day.

If the gate crew didn't think to offer higher compensation to entice more people off the aircraft, then that's egg on United's face.
If the gate crew thought of offering more compensation, but weren't authorized to do so, then that's an organizational failure around the issue of staff empowerment, and it's egg on United's face.
If the gate crew wasn't given suffiicent authority, but tried to overcome that by reach an appropriate level of management, but couldn't do so, that's an organizational failure around operational management: egg on United's face.
If they contacted a manager with the requisite authority to increase the compensation, and the manager turned them down, then that's a failure of corporate priority-setting: egg on United's face.
If there was no procedure in place for ops to book a charter to get this crew to their destination, then that's an organizational failure around contingency or IROPS planning; egg on United's face.
If there was no contractual provision to let United fly these 4 via charter, then that's an organizational failure around negotiating a union contract that allows the airline to function: egg on United's face.


The people who created this problem, and those here arguing your side of this, seem to be thinking the way you'd expect a departmental bookkeeper to think rather than the way you'd expect senior management of a successful airline to think.

[HEMS driver]

He sure appears to be belligerent in the latest video - not.

Based on dozens of comments in this thread, it would appear that there is a culture within U.S. airlines of "we have always done it this way," and "it's not in our CBA," and "f**k the SLF/paying public. I make $3-400k/year, so screw them."

"Thinking outside the box" is, well, outside their comfort zone. Maybe they need comfort dogs and safe spaces.

I also suspect that U.S. airlines have been kicking compliant passengers off airplanes (post-boarding, i.e. in their seat) for so long that it has become acceptable, even though likely illegal and certainly contrary to their CoC. This practice has come to light because of this incident. Someone had the guts to say - NO!

They either have to set their computers to default to permanently reserve four seats on each flight, and use the tried and true "standby passenger system." If the four seats aren't utilized by DH crew, then let the standby passengers have them.

Or charter.

None of this will work of course, because it is outside the box.

[Ranger One]

The law from the CFRs:

§ 250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily

From a lawyer friend:

"At the point where the incident happened all pax held "confirmed reserved space" and indeed were occupying their seats. The late-arriving positioning crew did not hold "confirmed reserved space". Even disregarding the fact that boarding had in fact already taken place, it was impossible to involuntarily deny boarding to any of the pax - let alone to involuntarily remove them from the aircraft after they boarded! - as that would contravene the explicit legal requirement of CFR 14. 250.2A to remove the "smallest practicable number". Claimed 'Operational requirements' do not signify here; United prima facie acted illegally.

As regards removal of pax from the aircraft for any other reason than 'denied boarding' there are a list of circumstances in United's conditions of carriage when that is permitted; on the evidence I've seen this pax didn't meet any of them.

United are intercoursed"

(He used a word other than "intercoursed" which might get the post moderated if I repeated it)

Make of that what you will. But it makes sense to me.

[HEMS driver]

:D

Denied "boarding" of course is critical here also. He had already boarded. Absent any illegal activity on his part, the seat is his. Any actions by UAL, Frontier, Airport security guards, or their agents to physically remove him is prima facie illegal. Can you say false arrest, assault, battery, false imprisonment, Title 18 USC civil rights violation, ...

[Gauges and Dials]

GF

Anything has the potential to be negotiated in the future, that day however it wasn't an option.

What you seem to be missing here is that "it wasn't an option" is entirely United's fault.

If, in fact, as you keep asserting, there weren't other options, it's because United had boxed itself into a corner, perhaps by failing to anticipate the need to transport DH crew at the last minute, or perhaps through poor operational planning, or perhaps through a penny-wise, pound-foolish set of operational priorities.

Any way you want to cut it, this entire incident, that turned what otherwise would have been a few thousand $ spent on accommodation, and a couple of travelers only too delighted to take their $1,200 and fly out the next day, into a PR debacle worth hundreds of millions of dollars in reputational damage.

Is there any possible way you could look at this that does not lead to the ultimate conclusion that United screwed up? Maybe the screwup wasn't Sunday night. Maybe the holes in the swiss cheese started to line up weeks, or months, or years earlier: in training, in developing contingency plans; in designing the organizational structure and assigning levels of discretionary authority; in establishing relationships with Part 135 operators at major hubs; in negotiating contracts with crew, etc.

[SalNichols]

All 70 passengers from 3411 are being fully re-imbursed. That's cheaper than just offering some passenger $1500.

Q: Are gate agents financially incentivized to keep the reimbursements/vouchers as low in value as possible?

[ayroplain]

Which brings me back to the really stupid people at UA (and the cop) that could not understand his position.
It was more a case that they (deliberately) would not understand his position and, having decided he was the one to go, were determined to use their arrogant power-trip-fuelled bully boy tactics to throw him off. It's so refreshing to finally see a stop being put to their gallop.

[aox]

Hmm, some of us in the rest of the world might have imagined that American labour was more flexible than the stereotypes we have been fed by parts of our press about ourselves for years.

Now someone is telling us about unions in American airlines. It makes sense to me to have agreements like not sitting on jump seats for more than an hour, though it sounds above like just not allowed at all. Now it additionally seems that 4 to 10 seat aircraft that are perfectly good enough as occasional transport for millionaire businessmen might cause certain aircrew to turn their noses up.

Oh dear.

If the crew won't deign to be flown by some 25 year old oik that might remind them of their former selves, then as Satco~ hinted above, why not put the denied or removed passengers on it instead?

The airline has about 1 in 1000 of its passengers affected by changing their plans for them either voluntarily or not. If it works out too expensive to treat them well enough, then revise booking policy and methods.

[Gauges and Dials]

It was more a case that they (deliberately) would not understand his position and, having decided he was the one to go, were determined to use their arrogant power-trip-fuelled bully boy tactics to throw him off. It's so refreshing to finally see a stop being put to their gallop.

9/11: the gift that keeps on giving.

Particularly with regard to the belligerent attitude we now seem to encourage in everybody from shopping mall parking attendants to airline gate agents, all in the name of "security" of course.

[Piper_Driver]

I'm sure that any contingency standby alternate transportation that could have been in place with a simple retainer fee was nixed by the idiot bean counters that run the airlines these days. These are the same geniuses that set the overbooking compensation amounts and figure out what percentage to overbook flights by.

[Turbine D]

WC,
There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.
Why don't you give it up? The UAL CEO said they were wrong and they were. Apparently, you are having a hard time with the basic reason you have a job at which ever airline you fly for, is simply because you have customers that come first, not second or third or not at all...

I saw this video. The Doctor was very cordial when asked to deplane but changed when he was informed that he would not be able to reach Louisville until Monday afternoon and then became "belligerent" when they came to drag him out.

I sincerely hope you are not representative of the total air transport industry, better yet, I am glad I am retired from this industry in case you are truly reflective of it... SAD!

[galaxy flyer]

The many US crew posts here perfectly describe the reason US carriers are so hated by the passengers and why carriers like the ME3, BA, CX, SQ, ANA thrive--they understand the customer's desires and respect them humans. The arrogance of "it's our toy to fly and public be damned" is exactly how air travel is here.

I was a corporate chief pilot and we never positioned crews on US carriers outside of North America unless absolutely necessary due to hideous service, lost bags, bumps, etc.

[Piper_Driver]

An aviation attorney has weighed in from the article linked here: David Dao vs United Lawsuit - How Much Can United Airlines Be Sued For (http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/a9266366/david-dao-united-law-suit/)

"First, Wolk believes the airline breached its own contract by removing Dao. Having read United's contract of carriage in its entirety, Wolk thinks Dao could sue for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional disturbance, and may also have grounds to sue under various civil rights acts, in addition to that breach of contract.
"There is nothing in that contract that gives United the right to commit an assault and battery on a passenger," he told me over the phone.
"This is not a denied boarding incident, which is covered by the contract; this man was already boarded. This is not an oversold incident, as provided for by the contract; this airplane was not oversold—every passenger was ticketed and had a seat.
"This was not a situation where the passenger was unruly, committed a criminal act, interfered with the flight crew, was incapable of being a passenger by himself or anything of that nature, obviously until they attempted to physically throw him off the airplane.
"So to me, United Airlines breached their own contract of carriage."
Second, if Wolk points out that if this case does go to trial, the case would come down to the jury—another major obstacle for United. "You have to understand what your jury pool is going to look like here. Virtually every person who has flown on an airline flight on a regular basis feels that airlines abuse their passengers. The mindset of the jury pool is that they hate the way they're being treated by airlines."

[rotornut]

Statement of Claim:
Pilot in Command of Aircraft; United Airlines; Oscar Munzos CEO of United Holdings Inc.; Chicago Airport Police. Wow, hit hit the jackpot.

[b1lanc]

Looks like United is already taking steps to quickly resolve the matter :ok::



United to refund ticket cost to Flight 3411 passengers - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports (http://www.wave3.com/story/35135187/united-to-refund-ticket-cost-to-flight-3411-passengers)

It's not going to go away. Dao's lawyers will uncover nuggets and 'drip' them to the media because publicity equals increased legal fees recovered. Their goal now is to damage the brand even further and over a longer period of time to insure maximum recovery. And of course we now have a bunch of DC politicos who want another excuse for media time and show and tell rather then taking care of the people's business.

[b1lanc]

Powell said he and other passengers were in shock, but the worst part, for him, came when Dao returned to the plane and was cornered near the bathroom in the back - closer to Powell's students. "I'm thinking to myself, 'Nothing good is coming of this,'" Powell said. "... I removed my kids from the plane, saying we don't need to see this stuff. We got up and left." The group was quickly followed by a father and his eight-year-old daughter, who was crying along with one of Powell's students, he said. Soon after, the airline deboarded the plane to clean up blood from the incident.

It was reported that some passengers with small children refused to re-board the flight, and took travel vouchers from United for a later flight. Thus the flight 3411 departed two hours later, with EMPTY SEATS.

Class action coming from other pax on the flight.

[b1lanc]

Claybird,

There is NO way UA Legal is going let this go to court. As to the Chicago Police, they have a long record of paying to victims of police bodily injuries--millions for less than this event.

UA doesn't control whether this goes to court or not. If they offer $10M settlement and his lawyers refuse, it goes to court. There may be some point at which Dao may settle but it's not in his attorney's best interest to cave early.

[armchairpilot94116]

I hope the Doc does NOT take the offer. This case needs to go to court so that changes can be made as to how airlines handle well behaved , seated and ticketed passengers who are well within , at least common sense rights, to fly without the fear of being offloaded. Passenger rights are being usurped here.

[HEMS driver]

Because of Dr. Dao's age (69), settling is in his best interest. Otherwise, UAL sharks will drag this out.

[Piper_Driver]

United employee's excuse "we were following established process"

The following quotation from Jeff Bezos is appropriate in this instance:

Jeff Bezos, 2017 –

"This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you're doing the process right.” Gulp.
“It's not that rare to hear a junior leader defend a bad outcome with something like, 'Well, we followed the process.' A more experienced leader will use it as an opportunity to investigate and improve the process. The process is not the thing. It's always worth asking, do we own the process or does the process own us?"

[ninedaysjane]

Gauges

No, trying to educate people like yourself . . . .That's why this is going so slow, having to educate the uneducated. No harm meant, I'm sure I'd have a steep learning curve in a technical field outside of aviation.

In the five years that I've been a registered member (and a lurker well before that), I've never felt it necessary or appropriate to post, since I'm a lowly enthusiast and quite content to enjoy the collective wisdom of the pilot community. I haven't always agreed with everything I've read here, but the insight that I, a mere observer and dreamer, have gained has proven invaluable when an aviation story hits the news. I'm grateful for that.

I'm only speaking up now (and risking smack down by the pros followed by a swift removal from the site) because I am so appalled by the sheer arrogance of this particular poster. I've read thousands of posts on this site, and I don't think I've seen anyone express him- or herself in such a pompous, preening, sanctimonious manner. While I'm not a mental health professional, his tone and language convey an air of grandiosity that borders on narcissistic. Add me to the list of people who'd like to know who employs Captain Happy, because this is not someone I want conveying my 67-year-old disabled mother to see her ailing sister. This is not the man I want at the helm when my 19-year-old niece travels to South America to begin her study abroad this summer. Plenty of decent, considerate, safety- and passenger-oriented captains out there. This site proves as much. The world doesn't need another Jakob van Zanten.

[Ranger One]

UA doesn't control whether this goes to court or not. If they offer $10M settlement and his lawyers refuse, it goes to court. There may be some point at which Dao may settle but it's not in his attorney's best interest to cave early.

Additionally this won't just be a civil suit. See my post up the page; they're likely to face regulatory/criminal action for their breach of CFRs. They're unlikely to be able to pay that away.

[meadowrun]

And Mr. Bezos is right. Behemoth companies often rely on paper procedures (manuals) to guide staff, thus diminishing the roles of roles of humans up the chain of command in the "next decision" process. This can work well for technical aspects (check lists, repair manuals etc.) but often not very well when dealing with human factors. There is still a wide aversion to empowerment of employees in many corporations albeit often for good reasons (education levels, intelligence, motivation......).


At the end of this, I most dislike the Chicago Aviation Police bully-boy who decided that as brute force capabilities were the reason for his existence, applied his fall back situation resolution skills to the weak.

[HEMS driver]

Indeed. Employees need to be empowered to make decisions outside the box when necessary.

All three officers are now under suspension. Hopefully we will soon learn what UAL staff told the Airport Police that generated their response. Regardless, whatever was said won't justify the use of excess force, let alone their involvement in the first place.

[bloom]

“Aviation Security Officers (ASOs) are part of the public safety teams at both O’Hare and Midway, and complement and assist the Chicago Police Department (CPD)

Rent a cops

Not United, not the crew not UA agents, rent a cops.

[HEMS driver]

Just about. The Chicago contingency are not even armed.

[laardvark]

they certainly seemed to have a chip on the shoulder .

I expect most of those on board to sue . can UA survive ?

[Harry Wayfarers]

I'm still bemused whilst trying to understand the logic whereas crew may only position (deadhead) by scheduled service and not by privately chartered aircraft, where sitting in steerage, perhaps sandwiched between two other passengers, is preferably to a privately chartered aircraft, personal service and able to stretch one's legs, when I worked crew scheduling and I were to have offered crew the choice they would have jumped at the offer of a privately chartered aircraft.

I recall my first airline department manager, he started his career at London/Croydon Airport and as the aircraft would taxi from stand the ground staff would salute the Captain.

In the main things have moved on from the age of dinosaurs, alas it seems that union involvement, probably refusing to move with the times and give up a right that has been in place since the dark ages, has created the situation that occurred last Sunday.

As I believe the UAL CEO was quoted as saying, that his staff have plenty of common sense but aren't allowed to use it, it seems that UAL, perhaps the union, have allowed it to be forgotten that they are in the business of transporting fare paying passengers and those fare paying passengers should always be their first priority.

[Harry Wayfarers]

“followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation).”

But, as I understand it, they didn't offer a single dollar in compensation, they only offered a voucher which I wouldn't imagine would serve much, if any, purpose once involuntarily offloaded and in a hotel bar, in a local steak house etc. etc. etc.

If all they offered me was a voucher I'd tell them to "shove it" also!

[Chris2303]

I wonder if ethnicity is in the unloading algorithm.

[Thaihawk]

I'm still bemused whilst trying to understand the logic whereas crew may only position (deadhead) by scheduled service and not by privately chartered aircraft, where sitting in steerage, perhaps sandwiched between two other passengers, is preferably to a privately chartered aircraft, personal service and able to stretch one's legs, when I worked crew scheduling and I were to have offered crew the choice they would have jumped at the offer of a privately chartered aircraft.

I recall my first airline department manager, he started his career at London/Croydon Airport and as the aircraft would taxi from stand the ground staff would salute the Captain.

In the main things have moved on from the age of dinosaurs, alas it seems that union involvement, probably refusing to move with the times and give up a right that has been in place since the dark ages, has created the situation that occurred last Sunday.

As I believe the UAL CEO was quoted as saying, that his staff have plenty of common sense but aren't allowed to use it, it seems that UAL, perhaps the union, have allowed it to be forgotten that they are in the business of transporting fare paying passengers and those fare paying passengers should always be their first priority.

No passengers= no income=no business.

A no brainer, except to maybe unions stuck in the dinosaur ages and certain legacy airlines.

[West Coast]

The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-most-admired-airlines-in-the-world-2017-2)

[Chesty Morgan]

Hmmm. If the criteria included customer service...

[Gauges and Dials]

The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-most-admired-airlines-in-the-world-2017-2)

When it's the passengers doing the ratings, the rankings come out a fair bit differently:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Airlines

[slats11]

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors are considering a rule that would prohibit the use of SFPD to enforce policy decisions on the part of any airline. IOW, if you choose to deplane a passenger under overbooking circumstances, you get to do it...and you get to absorb the full liability of your decision.

Sounds fair if the airline created the situation. Sort out your own mess.

The airlines create this situation, try limited steps to resolve it, and then resort to threatening pax with LEO if s/he don't cooperate. This threat does usually sort out the problem, but if the threat doesn't work then LEO get caught in the mess.

You break it, you own it. Next time you might be more careful not to break it.

[WingNut60]

While :

No passengers= no income=no business.


is undeniably true, so are the following, as examples only.

Dickensian employment conditions = no staff = no business, and
No profits=no investors=no business, and probably a few more.

It's a balancing act and it ain't as simple as any one liner.

[Matt48]

The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-most-admired-airlines-in-the-world-2017-2)
Most likely this is connected to shareholder returns.

[armchairpilot94116]

Local Bay Area news reporting that all passengers on that flight are to have their ticket price refunded either in cash or coupons. And more importantly, a class action lawsuit is being planned by those on the flight.

United is getting more egg on face.

[Airbubba]

Here's the initial filing in the lawsuit discovery process for all of the sea lawyers here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/345033705/Dao-Petition#fullscreen

[CCGE29]

After a quick scroll through the UA Facebook page it appears that every post has been 'hijacked' by unhappy customers and complaints about this most recent incident and also other incidents which are extremely similar. And before this latest incident there are people compaqlining about the leggings incident. UA have stopped responding on Facebook and Twitter now.

[robdean]

There are a few captains on this thread whose approach is 'the captain has absolute authority, all must obey instantly and if failure to obey gets you a blooded face, so be it'. There are excellent operational reasons for captains' authority, and the last thing they need is regulation or statute which complicates or curtails it. But touting such discretion as the final word in a case like this is unwise: there is huge public dismay at this case and those who use 'the rules' to justify it must remember that 'the rules' ultimately depend on society's consent and consensus: don't issue a loud open invitation for your degree of discretion (and every other captains) to be formally reassessed and possibly curtailed by insisting blindly that your powers make it impossible for any way you treat pax to be deemed unreasonable.
If you were to treat people, within the rules and without exceeding your authority, in a manner which appalled the Senate Committee with responsibility for transport, do you really imagine that they would regard the existence of those rules and that authority as the end of the matter?

[CCGE29]

There must be a limit on how far you can go. As for West Coast, I hope I am never on an aircraft that he is flying. The captain might have the final say whilst in the air, when in the ground the final say is your employer and the owner of the aircraft. They failed this time and although many of you blame the captain the airline is ultimately to blame.

[framer]

Re all the comments about Captains,( this site used to be about 50% Captains posting....feels like about 2% now) I think there will be a lesson that current Airline Captains can take from this once a factual report is released and it will be thus;
Although ground staff and Police are usually quite good at their jobs, if a passenger is to be removed the Captain should hold a two minute meeting with those involved to set expectations about how the removal will be conducted and set a clear expectation that another meeting will be held prior to using any form of physical coercion.
I imagine the Captain involved just assumed everyone would do their job in a professional manner and it didn't turn out that way.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Although ground staff and Police are usually quite good at their jobs, if a passenger is to be removed the Captain should hold a two minute meeting with those involved to set expectations about how the removal will be conducted and set a clear expectation that another meeting will be held prior to using any form of physical coercion.
I imagine the Captain involved just assumed everyone would do their job in a professional manner and it didn't turn out that way.

I'll take a punt that the Captain was occupied doing the job that he is primarily employed for, pre-departure checks, maybe ground staff in the flight deck with LMC's to the loadsheet, minus 4 punters, plus 4 of god's gift plus 4 bags etc. etc. etc.

I'll take another punt that the punters selected to be kicked off were hand baggage only and didn't have any bags in the hold!

[unworry]

How is it plausible that the E170's CVR from the 9th could have been over-written already ... ?

I find this claim from a less reputable forum a little hard to believe, but will stand corrected.

[wiggy]

if a passenger is to be removed the Captain should hold a two minute meeting with those involved to set expectations about how the removal will be conducted and set a clear expectation that another meeting will be held prior to using any form of physical coercion.

Nice in theory but certainly in my experience it doesn't generally work like that, even outside the states. I've had a few incidents onboard where UK police have had to meet the aircraft on arrival and I also have a colleague who was caught up in a sit-in/demo....again in the UK. In all cases the police arrived, wanted a brief brief as to WTF was going on, and most definitely didn't want a brief as to how to handle it..... they basically then ordered the captain and crew to keep out of the way ........ IMHO best you can do in those circumstances is then act as a witness.

I imagine the Captain involved just assumed everyone would do their job in a professional manner and it didn't turn out that way.

Agreed.

[DingerX]

Why weren't the gate agents empowered to offer a better deal?
Some are blaming it on Smisek and the Continental merger (http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-fiasco/).

Many times someone has said that this will be a "classic Harvard Business School Case Study". Of course, that's how we got here in the first place. Revenue can be quantified. One pissed-off passenger? Not quantifiable.
Control everything that you can quantify, and you'll get the best economic performance. You'll also have flight crews that are fatigued and underpaid, and subject to last-minute disruptions of their life and health, inflexible union regulations (because, if allowed to bend, they'd only ever bend one way), demoralized gate agents with no incentive to go out of their way, and airport security officers who aren't paid enough to care.
Not quantifiable, and if there were a way to quantify it, it wouldn't be done, since nobody gets a bonus for showing the hidden costs of business as usual, and someone might even be held liable for knowingly abusing people that way.

Why are US airlines turning a massive profit? It ain't from flying planes; it's the loyalty programs (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-31/airlines-make-more-money-selling-miles-than-seats). Now, there are many reasons for this, but for many people, if they can choose an airline, being treated with respect matters a lot more than the absolute lowest price.

Incidentally, my understanding was that this is the problem that Mr. Muñoz was brought in to solve: consumer dissatisfaction with United is extremely high. A lot of hate has been rained on his second statement, the one addressed to United employees in which he said that he stood by them. He's supposed to do that. He's also supposed to fix a system where management has nickle-and-dimed everyone's discretionary margin to the point that employees are enslaved to procedure and clients revolt.

[Ranger One]

There are a few captains on this thread whose approach is 'the captain has absolute authority, all must obey instantly and if failure to obey gets you a blooded face, so be it'. There are excellent operational reasons for captains' authority, and the last thing they need is regulation or statute which complicates or curtails it.

Well that raises an interesting question. There have been a few cases well-reported in the press where pax have been removed for - bluntly - 'flying while Muslim'. "A passenger saw someone sitting near them reading something in Arabic and became concerned..." - and the upshot on a few occasions has been a captain requiring the Muslim passenger to disembark.

I think the authority of the captain when the doors are open at the gate is far from absolute. Indeed as an employee of the airline they are obliged to follow and enforce the airline's conditions of carriage. Those of United are here; I've linked directly to the section which lists permissible grounds for offloading.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

I see nothing in the relevant section (21) which lists "passenger who someone else is concerned about on entirely specious ground" as being a permissible reason for offloading. So a captain who tried that could well receive a metaphorical slap in the face from a well-informed passenger armed with a copy of the conditions of carriage.

And also be in noted there is nothing there permitting the offloading of ticketed and confirmed passenger in order to accommodate someone - such as an employee - who is neither ticketed nor confirmed.

[DaveReidUK]

How is it plausible that the E170's CVR from the 9th could have been over-written already ... ?

I find this claim from a less reputable forum a little hard to believe, but will stand corrected.

Most modern solid-state CVRs store 2 hours of recording.

Given that the aircraft in question flew (eventually) to Louisville, and then the following day operated 4 sectors with a total scheduled block time of over 8 hours, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect it to have been long since overwritten.

[radeng]

The interesting question appears to be whether an instruction from the aircraft crew not related to safety or other requirements in the CoC is legal if it involves a breach of contract?

I was once bumped off a flight from LAX to LHR after I had sat down in Business with a glass of champagne. Given $250 cash, a voucher for meal in a posh restaurant in LA, a First Class ticket on a redeye to New York and a First Class from JFK to LHR on the morning flight, free telephone calls, and got home 12 hours later than I would have done. Plus F class frequent flyer miles......

That was back in the mid 1990's though, on American.

[newfoundglory]

The interesting question appears to be whether an instruction from the aircraft crew not related to safety or other requirements in the CoC is legal if it involves a breach of contract?

Agreed.

This is why you absolutely buy pax out of the contract using cash.

This could silence captains authority in non-safety related matters, create some case law, change policies etc.

(I think this would be a good thing, as it would mean an airline ticket is worth more than 'we'll get you there, we just don't guarantee when')

[framer]

I'll take a punt that the Captain was occupied doing the job that he is primarily employed for, pre-departure checks, maybe ground staff in the flight deck with LMC's to the loadsheet, minus 4 punters, plus 4 of god's gift plus 4 bags etc. etc. etc
I've got a reeaal simple view of what I'm primarily employed for, to do what is necessary to keep my crew, passengers, aircraft and cargo from coming to any harm. If I can fly them efficiently and on time to their preferred destination then that's great, if not, no problem as long as I achieve the primary goal.

[BluSdUp]

There is nothing on the CVR after two hrs.
It designed to erase after 2 hrs, always.