USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

[edmundronald]

This didn't occur by accident, force was called for and applied to a contractual partner of UA, subsequent to a contract dispute.

Captain's mistake was calling/authorizing call for law enforcement - ie. calling for force. He had other options among which refusing the United deadheaders, or calling a mech malfunction and reboarding after emptying the plane. Ultimately the Captain is the authority who demanded that force be applied to this passenger.

The rent-a-cops may get fired because they stepped into a civil dispute outside their remit, although their job profile should allow them to say "we followed orders". The Captain is supposed to be smart enough to understand the consequences of unleashing gorillas on a physician - he deserves to be blacklisted by all US hospitals, exactly like a dsiruptive passnger would be placed on a no-fly list.

As for United's President, he certainly made a case for most jobs being done equally well -equally badly- by robots :)

[PDR1]

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


Yes, I appreciate that. But I was allowing for the possibility that a short-nitice charter flight couldn't go directly from O'Hare to Louisville because the runway slots weren't available (I don't actually know, but I doubt you could get a light twin slot out of LHR at 20 mins notice). So I was suggesting that a better contingency plan would be to have call-off contracts with charter operators at the many far less busy GA airports in both areas.

[GearDown&Locked]

(..) 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. (..)

That's exactly what we've seen stated here by some of the more "assertive" posters: they appear to lack the energy to bend the rulebook, even though it all points to nonsensical way of solving an unattended problem thrown at them.
They are so tired at the end of the day, that they couldn’t care less, and take refuge in the standard way of doing business. “TERRAIN TERRAIN - PULL UP!”

[framer]

Why would you bother with call-off contracts ( you'd have to audit them regularly as well) when the whole thing can be fixed by offering a few hundred bucks to the pax to voluntarily disembark? It's cheap.

[lomapaseo]

What evidence is there that the crew of the contract flight was complicit in all this?

I would have expected the United gate agents made most decisions and called for help from the Airport Police.

any confirmed facts on this ?

[slats11]

@ Claybird

That also means that the matter can - and should, in my humble opinion - be pursued (on different level, that of passenger liability) based on federal statutes involving disregarding commands by federal officers, declining to act upon crew instructions and disrupting interstate commerce by keeping the aircraft on the ground because of said actions.

Now that's funny. Have you had a few drinks tonight?


@ 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.

So a pax injured to the point of requiring hospital treatment while on board a flight - albeit plane parked at gate. If the CVR could shed any light on the events leading up to the incident, should not the CVR have been quarantined?
I'm pretty sure his aviation lawyers will know the 2 hour limit. But this "discovery" will add a bit more intrigue and public interest.


@ Gauges and Dials

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.

Exactly. All sorts of people all round the world have been tramping on the memory of the 9/11 victims by citing "security" to win petty arguments. That is an abuse to the memory of the victims.
We all understand the need for security - frustrating though it can be at times. We all accept that someone who genuinely tries to antagonise or avoid legitimate security measures deserves to be denied passage. If you don't want to be screened, then walk.
However we all know that this has become a frequent, simple and all-too convenient out for people trying to defend an otherwise indefensible and arbitrary position. We have all met this aviation employee. Critically, the defendants lawyers will be well aware that every judge and every juror has also met this employee.


@ rotornut

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

Yep, everyone was going to be joined in this action.

You want to have ultimate authority and "nothing happens without my approval" and "my word is law".... Thats fine. But responsibility always goes hand in hand with authority.

The PIC does have substantial power and authority. No question. The PIC also enjoys the respect of 99% of pax - thats still true even today. But this power and authority does really relate to safe operation of aircraft, comfort and safety of pax..... And I think some pax would be concerned about some of the attitudes displayed here.
In all walks of life, there are limits to power and authority. And you can always be called to account if someone thinks there has been an abuse of this.
Look at LEO. They have authority to use "reasonable force", and are frequently called to account over whether force used was reasonable or excessive.


@ b1lanc

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.

You just couldn't make this up could you? Yep there will be a large class action over this event.


@ piper driver

"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.”


Yep. Always follow process and present a small target. If the outcome is bad, then the process or system (designed by someone else) is wrong and you can't be blamed.

[GearDown&Locked]

IMHO pilots and gate agents don't get along too well, and if the gate agents were in fact responsible for this event (and having the authority to do so), what can the PIC do if not to step aside and let them have it their own way.

[birmingham]

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.

In the UK the actions of the police would be independently investigated outside of any civil law suit. When law enforcement resolve situations by force and people get hurt they should have to account. It is the part of the contract with the public that supports them when they do have to legitimately hurt people.

It is hard to see anyway that Chicago Police or UAL are going to escape this especially with the publicity hungry reptiles on The Hill

[Jet Jockey A4]

On the CVR discussion I don't think they could use it and not because of the 2 hour loop.

I don't know how it works on this type of aircraft but if it is sitting at the gate, door opened is the CVR actually recording?

On some aircraft I have flown for the CVR to start recording the door must be closed and the beacon to be "ON", on some others it starts recording only on engine start up.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Captain's mistake was calling/authorizing call for law enforcement

Have I missed something ... Where has it been quoted that it was the Captain that called the cops?

In my experience when there has been trouble down the back, and "yes" I have been involved in overpowering a disruptive passenger on board an in-flight DC10, the flight crew have well and truly locked themselves in the flight deck even if they are peeping through the peep hole to find out what the **** is going on down the back.

[slats11]

On the CVR discussion I don't think they could use it and not because of the 2 hour loop.


The lawyers know it was likely not recording at the time. However it is almost certain there was considerable discussion about the event when the flight eventually departed. And that is what they will say they are after.

They also know it will have been over-written.

But the "black boxes" are very powerful in the eyes of lay people. So it will be pretty easy to use this apparent "new development" to maintain public interest and cast suspicion.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

although their job profile should allow them to say "we followed orders"
That hasn't worked since Nuremberg. There's no way a private citizen (aka "rent-a-cop"), or even a real cop come to that, should be able to get away with that as an excuse for assaulting someone.

EDIT:

Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").

[Jet Jockey A4]

The lawyers know it was likely not recording at the time. However it is almost certain there was considerable discussion about the event when the flight eventually departed. And that is what they will say they are after. .

Good point!

[Jet Jockey A4]

That hasn't worked since Nuremberg. There's no way a private citizen (aka "rent-a-cop"), or even a real cop come to that, should be able to get away with that as an excuse for assaulting someone.

EDIT:

Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").

Yes they could definitely spin it that way to deflect the blame... What a mess this thing is turning out to be for United Airlines.

[SMT Member]

IMHO pilots and gate agents don't get along too well, and if the gate agents were in fact responsible for this event (and having the authority to do so), what can the PIC do if not to step aside and let them have it their own way.

I'll both agree and disagree with the first statement. When poor relations develop, it's a case of attitude, personality and authority disagreements. There gate agents and pilots in equal measure, with chip laden shoulders and a need to establish territorial boundaries.

I've almost never had a problem, regardless which side of the door I was working. My experience tells me the best outcome is secured by mutual respect for each others responsibilities, and letting people do the job their paid and trained to do without interference, unless absolutely necessary.

Having said all that, there's a better than good chance the decisions were taken at the gate, in cooperation with the airline Operations department. I'd wager that the Captain was kept in the loop, but not solicited for possible resolutions to the problem. They were at the gate, doors open, thinking is likely to have been along the lines of: It's an issue for ground staff to handle.

The downer is, of course, that it's the PiC being named in the claim, not the faceless agents working the gate and in OPS.

This is something very worth keeping in mind: Even if the agreed SOP is to let ground handle issues relating to passengers, cargo and mail up to the point where the door is closed, decisions made outside the direct influence of the PiC during this phase, and perhaps without even keeping him/her informed, may not absolve him/her of legal 'guilt'.

[slats11]

Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").

Yes there will be plenty of finger pointing. Which is why they are all joined in this action as co-defendents.

Lawyers dream of this bit - when infighting breaks out among defendants. It simply doesn't get any better.

[wiggy]

This is something very worth keeping in mind: Even if the agreed SOP is to let ground handle issues relating to passengers, cargo and mail up to the point where the door is closed, decisions made outside the direct influence of the PiC during this phase, and perhaps without even keeping him/her informed, may not absolve him/her of legal 'guilt'

Good point...might hopefully even make some airlines reconsider their policies (official or otherwise) regarding keeping Flight Crew "in the loop" during the boarding/loading process...:ugh:

[CCGE29]

As soon as one incident happens we here of more and more similar stories:

That time passengers were told to give up their seats for United's CEO and his family - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-horror-stories-20170412-story.html)

Somthing big needs to happen with United, they deserve to lose all of their customers. How they still have any I do not know. Some serious changes are needed at UA to bring these customers back. It's easier to keep existing passengers than it is the attract new ones.

[JumpJumpJump]

The petition claims that the CVR recording is in the possession of one or both of the respondents.... If the CVR was recording during the incident, there is a chance that the recording during the incident time was taken from the CVR and preserved. likewise, depending on the flight time, the CVR of the flight from ORD to Louisville may have been preserved upon arrival as there no doubt would have been discussion about the incident on the FD during the cruise. The question also is whether or not that is admissable in court. Is that possible?

[wiggy]

If the CVR was recording during the incident, there is a chance that the recording during the incident time was taken from the CVR and preserved. likewise, depending on the flight time, the CVR of the flight from ORD to Louisville may have been preserved upon arrival as there no doubt would have been discussion about the incident on the FD during the cruise.

Someone would have to "order" the CVR to be pulled and TBH until the fit hit the shan :ooh: on youtube a day or two post the event I doubt anyone would have said - "hey, we'd better pull the CVR off the aircraft just in case"...IMHO chances are by now anything said during or re the incident has been overwritten, possibly several times, but I guess it's worth an ask.

As for admissablity - no idea, it's the States...

[Turbine D]

WC,
The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider
This would be history. The reasons given for selection seem to have evaporated in an instant, wouldn't you say?

[PDR1]

Why would you bother with call-off contracts ( you'd have to audit them regularly as well) when the whole thing can be fixed by offering a few hundred bucks to the pax to voluntarily disembark? It's cheap.

It's the final(?) layer in a layered contingency plan. We've established that for a short-notice DH aircrew demand the airline have no legal right to insist that a reserved/confirmed fare-paying passenger give up their seat either under Title 14 or the airline's CoC (as currently written). So if the need arises your plan would start with an escalating set of options to see if one can be induced to volunteer:

1. Upgrade to 1st class on the next flight in a few hours, with first class lounge until then

2. As (1) but with a free meal in the best restaurant at/near the airport

2a. As (2) but with free 5-star overnight accomodation including movies and minibar (where the next flight is the next day)

3. As (2/2a) but with ticket refund.

4. As (3) but with free return ticket on any of that airline's routes instead of the refund - option upgrade to 1st class on that bonus ticket, and/or extra ticket for partner & kids as potential deal closers

5. As (2/2a) but with a cash inducement up to some budget value (staff would need to be trained in how to find the required level here so that they don't all go to the max value.

Now all of that could be handed out as a tick-list to any passengers at the gate who respond to the question "would you be prepared to be bumped to the next flight if we offered some incentives?" You tell them it's a reverse auction - we need four seats so the lowest four bids win! You then collect in the forms and I would expect that MOST of the time you'd be able to select the winners in a matter of minutes - especially if you had the braincells to prepare by knowing when the next available flight with seats available actually was and had briefed it as you handed out the forms.

But you can't absolutely guarrantee it. You have no right to demand, and there will always be the time when half the fl;ight are all travelling to the same wedding and the other half are all due in court two hours after the flight lands to answer the same charges of election fraud (or WHY) and no amount of inducement in money, hotels, call-girls or free tickets will change their minds. So you need an ultimate contingency, and that is when you'd consider flying the DH crews in a chartered aeroplane.

But by this stage it's getting urgent, and you don't want to have to waste time negotiating rates and getting some senior bean-counter off the golf course to sign the purchase requisition. You want an established process that simply sends an email to each of the operators on the call-off contract to find who can fulfill the urgent demand. You choose the one that best suits the need and that's it. The small operator just submits an invoice for the pre-agreed amount under the established contract and gets paid after the usual 30 days (or whatever). No need for costly and time-wasting commercial actions or authorisation.

We do it with hire cars, stationary supplies, building repairs etc and this would just be another one.

[pax2908]

@PDR1 it could be simpler - make it that by law, compensation for denied boarding resulting in delay more than X hours, must be paid and shall be no less than Y (5k could be a good start). Similar to EU261 but with figures suitable for the US.

[DaveReidUK]

Strange nobody has thought of that before ...

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12789/revisions-to-denied-boarding-compensation-domestic-baggage-liability-limits-and-civil-penalty)

[Piper_Driver]

Based on this incident I predict congress will act. This is low hanging fruit for members on both sides of the aisle to look good to their constituents. Please remember that more than half of congressional representatives are ex-attorneys. I predict a passenger bill of rights law that will include:
1) no involuntary bumping for crew movement
2) required cash (not voucher) compensation for involuntary bumping - possibly as much as $10,000.
3) prohibition of law enforcement involvement for non-safety related actions.

Congress gets involved when industries fail police themselves and abuse the general public. This incident was like throwing chum into the middle of a school of sharks. The feeding frenzy will commence.

[Piper_Driver]

I also see criminal exposure here, especially for the rent-a-cops. I can see the DA filing charges for:
1) false arrest
2) assault and battery
3) assault under color of authority

[HEMS driver]

Strange nobody has thought of that before ...

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12789/revisions-to-denied-boarding-compensation-domestic-baggage-liability-limits-and-civil-penalty)

Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.

[Piltdown Man]

This incident will make things a whole lot more interesting in the future. Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. Now what? Given a weak crew an entire aircraft and those on the ground might will end up paying the price for an altercation at 30,000'. The contractual issue must be separated from the legal issue. This means that if I say to Passenger X "you are not flying" then Passenger X gets offf. By all means make a legal claim against my company for my descison, but there never be democracy or mob rule on an aircraft, if for no other reason than there are only two sets of controls.

[radeng]

There seems to be a grey area in that there must be limits to what are 'lawful commands' from the crew, and except where safety and security is concerned, it seems a bit dubious that commands resulting in breach of contract would be lawful.

[G-CPTN]

Beeb has announced that the daughter of Dr Dao is about to give a Press conference.

NOW!


Watch live (https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2017/04/13/watch-live-daughter-dragged-united-airlines-passenger-speaks-out/100409058/).

[DaveReidUK]

Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.

I know that, I was just answering the OP's question re IDB compensation regulations.

[HEMS driver]

I know that, I was just answering the OP's question re IDB compensation regulations.

Gotcha. :ok:

More discussion about the airport security force:

The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.


"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.

Read more here: Uproar over United video imperils Chicago airport police | The Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article144328669.html#storylink=cpy)

[Capot]

Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.You must be a lawyer; to the rest of the world not being allowed to board and being slung off just after you did board are pretty much the same thing.

The alternative course of action to forcing people off an aircraft by bodily hauling them off with a posse of thugs is to simply raise the ante until sufficient "volunteers" are found. Compared to the cost of delays, bad PR, buying alternative flights, etc etc there is almost no figure that is too high; if it had cost $40,000 to get 4 people off that UA aircraft it was still the cheapest solution. And trust me, I could have got 4 volunteers for a lot less than that.

Overbooking was, let's remind ourselves, a necessary evil in the good 'ole days that I knew, when a no-show was accommodated on a later flight, thus losing the carrier some money. Possibly.

Nowadays, THERE IS NO EXCUSE. If all the seats on the flight are sold, they are all paid for, no refunds allowed for a no-show. There is no need whatsoever to overbook to protect the revenue. Overbooking is simply a nasty con-trick to get 110% (or whatever, you know what I mean) of the seats paid for, most of the time. Regulators should get on top of this now, and stop placating the operators by ignoring it.

[Photonic]

This incident will make things a whole lot more interesting in the future. Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. Now what? Given a weak crew an entire aircraft and those on the ground might will end up paying the price for an altercation at 30,000'.

I don't think this will be a problem. Passengers aren't completely stupid. They can recognize a safety-related issue when they see one, like an unstable or drunk individual shouting and screaming, groping other pax, threatening the air crew, etc. If I'm sitting in a seat behind someone like that, I want them off the plane ASAP (or subdued in-flight), and I'll bet every other passenger does too. It's basic self-preservation.

The fact that this incident had nothing to do with flight safety is why it blew up the way it did.

[MrsDoubtfire]

Press Conference (Live Stream) with Dr. Daos lawyer and daughter:
LIVE STREAM: David Dao Press Conference On United Airline | Heavy.com (http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david-dao-united-passenger-doctor-press-conference-video-live-stream-watch/)

[HEMS driver]

You must be a lawyer; to the rest of the world not being allowed to board and being slung off just after you did board are pretty much the same thing.


No, and you apparently haven't been following the conversation. "Before boarding," and "boarded" are important distinctions.

The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.

[HEMS driver]

From press conference:

Dr. Dao's injuries:


Concussion
Two broken teeth
Serious broken nose
Will require reconstructive surgery

[k3k3]

And sinus damage

[Turbine D]

Claybird,
That also means that the matter can - and should, in my humble opinion - be pursued (on different level, that of passenger liability) based on federal statutes involving disregarding commands by federal officers, declining to act upon crew instructions and disrupting interstate commerce by keeping the aircraft on the ground because of said actions.
Opening pandora's box? Not going to happen. Will never get to a trial jury. Officers involved weren't federal, just airport employees. The airline and airport authority will settle out of court. Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more. :=

[LTNman]

So he was duffed up even worse than it appears on the films. The lawyer and his daughter were quite articulate in the press conference. I wonder if United will try to settle this out of court? Either way it is going to cost them millions for sending in the boot boys.

[Hotel Tango]

Will never get to a trial jury.

Possibly, unless Dr. Dao is not looking exclusively for financial compensation. The longer this drags on the more United will suffer. That may be an attractive bonus for him as well as getting the compensation he will win anyway.

[HEMS driver]

So he was duffed up even worse than it appears on the films. The lawyer and his daughter were quite articulate in the press conference. I wonder if United will try to settle this out of court? Either way it is going to cost them millions for sending in the boot boys.

Articulate indeed. Four of his kids are physicians, as is his wife.

[meadowrun]

Unfortunately the lead lawyer keeps on about over-booking and a need to get a handle on its practice (not intrinsic to the case) and even expanded his comments to the need for universal "service with a smile" in all industries.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

...Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. ...


Not a problem. Unstable, belligerent passengers who the crew believe is a threat to safety will still be removed just as they have always been.

What won't happen is the 67-year disabled mother who is flying to see an ailing relative and minding her own business getting dragged off because someone decided the seat was needed for crew.

Safety won't be compromised at all. :ok:

[sardak]

I was curious about the Chicago Aviation Security Officers and found that the city has openings for 9. Among their duties:


Arrests and detains individuals found violating or suspected of violating city, state and federal laws, restraining individuals using handcuffs or other restraining devices
Contacts and coordinates with Chicago Police Officers for the transfer, transporting and processing of arrested or detained individuals
Responds to incidents and disturbances including family and civil disputes occurring on airport grounds, assessing the situation to identify safety factors, securing the area and requesting needed backup and assistance
Establishes and maintains working relationships with airport tenants to address security issues and concerns and follows up with tenants regarding the status of complaints
Ability to exert muscle force and use appropriate control holds to apprehend, subdue and restrain individuals
Requires at least 60 semester (or 90 quarter) hours of credit from an accredited college or university OR a certificate from a military, federal, state or local Law Enforcement Officer’s Training Program OR two (2) years of Law Enforcement experience.
New employees must successfully complete the minimum standards set forth by the Illinois Local Law Enforcement Officer's Training Board and be certified by the State of Illinois as a Law Enforcement Officer

The full job description is available at this page, following the "City of Chicago Jobs" link
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/narr/misc/jobs/jobsnow.html

[slats11]

The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.

"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.

After a crisis does seem a strange time to be asking questions about limits of jurisdiction and authority.

So we have damning video substantiated by an objective list of personal injuries sustained
The airline CEO has said the pax was not to blame
There is some legal opinion that the CofC did not allow involuntary deplaning
And now the City Council is wondering whether the officers had jurisdiction and authority

I bet whoever threatened LEO didn't realise the ice they were standing on was this thin.

[RAT 5]

Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.

Are you sure? This damage was not an accident. Could it not be c,aimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the insured? This is like throwing a brick through your own window in a rage and claiming on your insurance it was an accident.

[armchairpilot94116]

I maintain that manhandling a 69 year old frail man in such a manner for no good reason is criminal.

I think United won't be able to avoid being in court, even if the Doc settles, because there are other issues that have been brought to the forefront. Godzilla (the govt) has awakened .

[Capot]

The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.Says who? An airline can do what it likes; it's the repercussions that should cause it to think twice.

But you are right, I had missed the point about the incident arising because they wanted the seats for crew. Even more inexcusable, and I stick by my post that they should simply have upped the ante until volunteers appeared. If the choice is that or a charter for the crew it's a no-brainer.

And even if over-booking was not the problem in this instance, it's still a pernicious practice which should be stamped on by the regulators. I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them. If a carrier wants to gamble and overbook anyway, think of the excess revenue against the occasional need to spend $1,000s to "volunteers" to get them out of the hole they've dug.

I get the impression that they simply ordered these people off without any good offer being tried first, and assaulted them when they objected. But I suppose someone will tell me I'm wrong about that.

Let's not forget, too, that this incident is in the context of the accelerating tendancy of passenger contact staff in the air and on the ground to believe that their role is a disciplinary one, combining a contempt for passengers with abusing them at every opportunity. Of course, as air travel has become relatively cheaper to the point of stupidity, so have passengers become more badly-behaved and disruptive.

This leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the cure lies in charging much higher prices, and paying a lot more for good passenger contact staff. But I don't expect PPRuNe to agree.

[DaveReidUK]

I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them.

No-shows most certainly do cost the airlines money. Why else would they devote so much creative energy to trying to minimise them ?

[HEMS driver]

Says who? An airline can do what it likes; it's the repercussions that should cause it to think twice.


It is in violation of United's contract with the ticketed passengers (CofC). To say that they "can do what it likes" is silly. They "can," as having the ability, but "may" they?" No. United contracted with Dr. Dao and all of the other passengers, and United's actions are in conflict with that contract.

Just because airlines have been pulling this bovine scatology for decades doesn't make it legal or right.

[Piper_Driver]

I think that overbooking due to no-shows is easy. If you bought the ticket and never made it to the airport you eat the ticket. The issue comes when the no-shows are due to missed connections because of airline or weather delays that are not the PAX fault. There will always be a certain number of these, and the airlines can't just void the tickets in those cases. A no-show will result along with the need to accommodate the customer on a later flight. I believe this was the original justification for over-booking.

[slats11]

Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.


That remains to be seen.

And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).

[lomapaseo]

Other than citing the basis of claims for injuries suffered, the lead lawyer on today's news conference (see above) was well spoken, speculative in his facts and self serving.

That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens

[HEMS driver]

That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens

I think United's CEO, along with an overwhelming social media and the 24/7 news cycle, let that horse out of the barn days ago. :E

[Jet Jockey A4]

Agreed!

All the lawyers for the family have to do now is present the facts.

[wendyg]

According to today's press conference, Dr Dao lost two front teeth, has a broken nose and a significant concussion and damage to his sinuses that will require reconstructive surgery.

United passenger dragged off flight will file lawsuit, lawyer says - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/13/travel/united-passenger-pulled-off-flight-lawsuit-family-attorney-speak/index.html)

[radeng]

But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court.


You also file a complaint of blackmail against the airline employees just to annoy...Because they were demanding that you allow breach of contract under threat.

[Gauges and Dials]

Nowadays, THERE IS NO EXCUSE. If all the seats on the flight are sold, they are all paid for, no refunds allowed for a no-show. There is no need whatsoever to overbook to protect the revenue.

Sure there is. The business model (and therefore the low ticket prices that attract customers) is dependent upon selling at a load factor of, (say for example) 110%. If regulation forces this back to 100%, then that's (approximately, given different prices for different classes of service) a 10% gut punch to top-line revenue.

[Piper_Driver]

This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.

[Gauges and Dials]

But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court. You just don't put up this kind of temper tantrum on an airplane, even when you're right and I'm pretty sure this passenger was in the right.


Had this passenger done as you suggest, then nobody would have heard of the incident, and, although he might personally have received adequate compensation in court, the underlying problems would never have been addressed.

Rosa Parks could have just complied and moved to the back of the bus, too.

Fixing pernicious institutional abuse often requires a considerable level of disobedience, often at considerable personal sacrifice to the individuals who are willing to stand up for everyone's rights.

[etudiant]

This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.

Agree entirely.
This has the potential to rewrite the rules for passenger management by the US airline industry.
The deadline imho for United to settle this is April 20th, when their responses to the Senate committee are due. If the case is still dragging on at that point, politicians will make the rules different. It will take industry some time to adjust to whatever changes are required, so a period on uncertainty.
Wall Street does not reward uncertainty.

[Gauges and Dials]

And even if over-booking was not the problem in this instance, it's still a pernicious practice which should be stamped on by the regulators. I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them.

For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.

Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.

Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.

[DaveReidUK]

This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.

The attorney made it clear at the press conference that they were only going to be representing Dr Dao, and that there was no intention of initiating a class action.

That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.

[Piper_Driver]

For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.

Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.

Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.

I'm also Ok with the practice of over-booking and voluntary compensation. The customer can make a choice that is market driven. When a lottery is held for involuntary "re-accommodation" the amount IMHO needs to be much larger. It can easily cost me (or my employer) far more than the $800 voucher (I also contend the voucher is inadequate in any amount) if I don't make it to my destination on time. If I lose this money due to Force Majure that is one thing. To do so because of someone I've contracted with to provide me with transportation has reneged on their end of the contract is not the same. In that case the payment must be proportional to the damage.

[autoflight]

Airlines must learn lessons from safety and commercial problems in their own and other airlines.

In this case clearly the problem of the airline. At the point of forced offloading that the airline allowed to become
violent, there was either a policy that allowed such serious actions, there was insufficient policy or none. Hard to
visualise a fault other than the airline.

The solutions include
Immediately compensate pax and not proceed with criminal prosecution
Publish overbooking and full offloading procedure including D/H crew

Of course all safety and commercial policies need review.

[Piper_Driver]

The attorney made it clear at the press conference that they were only going to be representing Dr Dao, and that there was no intention of initiating a class action.

That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.

The class action will come after the courts decide that the practice of bumping paying passengers in favor of DH crew is in violation of the CoCs.

[Bealzebub]

I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.

Good, that should help!

[Turbine D]

slats11,
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Since the early 90s, Bermuda-based insurance carriers have also offered policyholders a separate stand-alone policy to protect against awards for punitive damages where the domestic "wrapped" liability policy is otherwise prohibited from providing punitive damages coverage due to public policy, statutory, or regulatory considerations. The policy is offered on an indemnification basis and is triggered by a judgment in a court of law.

This coverage would come into play big time for an airline, lets say, where there is a major tragedy due to negligence by employees or management.

However, in this instance it isn't a loss resulting from a domestic crash resulting in the deaths of hundreds of victims.

It is this consideration as to why I believe United will do their very best to settle ASAP with all parties concerned and avoid going to court. They are a large corporation and should be able to reach an agreed upon settlement with the Doctor and or other passengers should there be a class action suit. United needs to get out of the limelight as quickly as possible, objective #1...

[DaveReidUK]

I also contend the voucher is inadequate in any amount

Nobody is obliged to accept a voucher in lieu of cash.

[andycba]

Yea, I don't disagree a trial is not going to look good for United, nor do I think they wish to have one. They will settle.

And just to clarify some things to the SLF who make comments about some of us being Gods or what not:

I also don't disagree with what everyone else says here: that this kind of behavior demonstrated by the officers is condemnable and probably more.

Yea, I'm pretty sure too that the company could have resolved this problem in a more professional, tactful and quiet matter. They should have.

I do disagree, however, on whether he had a right to resist like this.

But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court. You just don't put up this kind of temper tantrum on an airplane, even when you're right and I'm pretty sure this passenger was in the right.

THAT'S my objection to the whole thing.

No - you cannot deplane anybody you want. You need to have lawful reason, and if United did not then they deserve everything that comes their way. And if you participate in this screw up of policy and process, you are perpetuating this. It is exactly this type of blind stupid thinking that has led us to this terrible situation. And show me the evidence of any tempter tantrum before the security guy initiated a full on aggravated assault. If politely declining to be involuntarily removed from an allocated seat once taken is a temper tantrum, you do not belong up front.

[Airbubba]

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.

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

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.

On the CVR discussion I don't think they could use it and not because of the 2 hour loop.

I don't know how it works on this type of aircraft but if it is sitting at the gate, door opened is the CVR actually recording?

On some aircraft I have flown for the CVR to start recording the door must be closed and the beacon to be "ON", on some others it starts recording only on engine start up.

So a pax injured to the point of requiring hospital treatment while on board a flight - albeit plane parked at gate. If the CVR could shed any light on the events leading up to the incident, should not the CVR have been quarantined?
I'm pretty sure his aviation lawyers will know the 2 hour limit. But this "discovery" will add a bit more intrigue and public interest.

For several years after the two-hour CVR recording rule went into effect (after opposition from ALPA and the Regional Airline Association) our manuals still had the boilerplate phrase about a 30 minute recording.

And, I thought engines had to be running or at least the beacon needed to be on for the CVR to record but it turns out, on some planes at least, it runs whenever there is power on the aircraft. It's solid state so there is no tape to wear out, but still, this was news to me.

The PSA CRJ-200 overrun into the EMAS at CRW in 2010 had the crew doing a shutdown checklist but getting interrupted by communications before they could pull the CVR breaker. The NTSB CVR transcript has a call to the union rep and other conversation that in the past would be deemed 'non-pertinent' or privileged. As with the Comair crash at LEX, these guys were shucking and jiving and not maintaining a sterile cockpit on taxi out so that initial part of the recording is definitely relevant to the mishap. But, the harvesting of conversation about commuting, fatigue and other stuff we talk about up front seems to me to be increasing in the NTSB's recent airline accident reports.

If anything is found on the CVR in this ORD case, will it be admissible in a lawsuit proceeding? :confused: I don't claim to know.

[BluSdUp]

A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that.
Why are some overbooking. Greed and a marginal industry. And cods running the companys.

[lomapaseo]

The CVR is an investigators tool to be used in flight safety investigations.

It is not a tool designed and implemented for judicial actions not related to safety of flight.

All industry wide workers, especially including pilots are expected to speak out against the expansion of the use of a CVR for purely civil tort actions

[Max Angle]

Why are some overbooking.Its not some, its every airline that is successful enough to have full aircraft, it is standard practice throughout the industry. The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.
So how does this routine overbooking work then?


When you buy a ticket, or if you don't want to pay the couple of quid extra it's when you check in a week ahead of travel, you choose your seat from amongst those that nobody else has chosen.


Do airlines which routinely overbook allocate the same seat to two passengers then? The online system which is showing you which seats on your flight are still free is simply lying?

[DaveReidUK]

A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that.

Not necessarily true.

An empty seat is less fuel burn, I accept that.

It's also, potentially, an opportunity cost rather than money in the bank.

Airlines, historically, have tended not to penalise premium-fare passengers who don't show up for their booked flight by allowing them to move their reservation to a later one with no penalty. Sometimes the unused seat can be filled by a waitlisted passenger, sometimes it can't.

So, in effect, that passenger's fare may end up having bought two seats, one of which goes to waste, or reduces the revenue potential of the other flight, depending on how you look at it.

Of course if you're flying aft of the divider, the above probably won't apply and it's "use it or lose it". But to argue that noshows never impact on the bottom line simply isn't true.

And the airlines clearly agree, otherwise they wouldn't overbook.

[GP571HERO]

See the part for Involuntary bumping or Boarding
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
it is part of the Contract of Carriage
Also here in DOT or Transportaion.gov. for USA
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

[newfoundglory]

The (aviation) lawyer talking on the live broadcast, if you didn't see, did make a clear firm statement about how the captain was the one in charge. He joined this up by saying the CEO had then been smart in accepting responsibility. A warning?

[CCGE29]

The passenger had already boarded. UA cannot simply remove people for doing nothing wrong. The passenger was not compromising safety or security. The only party that compromised passengers safety was United.

[Gauges and Dials]

Its not some, its every airline that is successful enough to have full aircraft, it is standard practice throughout the industry. The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.

JetBlue proclaims that it does not overbook. According to this analysis, while that's technically true, in practice they end up with a lot of IDBs. Their fleet is mixed A320/A321, and when a flight originally scheduled for an A321 has an A320 substituted, the airline is short a lot of seats.
For an Airline That Doesn?t Overbook, JetBlue Sure is Bumping a Lot of Travelers | Cranky Flier (http://crankyflier.com/2016/12/26/for-an-airline-that-doesnt-overbook-jetblue-sure-is-bumping-a-lot-of-travelers/)

[Piltdown Man]

Airbubba - The CVR on most Embraer EJets runs for a perpetual two hours the moment the aircraft is powered up. The vital stuff would have been obliterated before it even departed. Also, don't get me wrong, but if my goose was cooking I'd be sorely tempted to press the erase button before I left the aircraft.

[BusAirDriver]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but it seems to be that United don't really care about their customers.

United Airlines staff 'forced frail grandma, 94, out of £2,800 Business seat into Economy for 16-hour flight' (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/travel/united-airlines-staff-forced-frail-grandma-94-out-of-%C2%A32800-business-seat-into-economy-for-16-hour-flight/ar-BBzMrCH?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout)

[Gauges and Dials]

A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that.


It's not nearly that simple.

I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:


Down $500 in lost ticket sales.
Up $X in reduced fuel burn
Down $Y in lost loyalty; because I couldn't get my seat I try their competitor, and might like them and make the switch.
Up $Z in reduced risk of having to deal with a voluntary or involuntary denied boarding payout.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It's not nearly that simple.

I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:

Down $500 in lost ticket sales.
Up $X in reduced fuel burn
Down $Y in lost loyalty; because I couldn't get my seat I try their competitor, and might like them and make the switch.
Up $Z in reduced risk of having to deal with a voluntary or involuntary denied boarding payout.

Where $Z, it turns out, is in the millions, so none of the other numbers matter.

[Gauges and Dials]

$Z is *potentially* in the millions. $Z is a very very small probability of a very very big number, probably quite a bit smaller than any of the others.

[CCGE29]

What has been determined from the last couple of weeks is that United really do not deserve to have any customers, there has been story after story emerging of similar incidents of bumping pax against their will with threats of arrest and violence.


Just some of the cases that have emerged in recent days:
United Airlines staff 'forced frail grandma, 94, out of £2,800 Business seat into Economy for 16-hour flight' - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/united-airlines-staff-forced-frail-10216619)


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/13/united-airlines-scorpion-stings-passenger


After United fiasco, more complaints of reportedly rough treatment emerge | NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/united_reportedly_threatened_to_handcuff_first-cla.html)


'Get off or pay for another seat.' United customers share their bad experiences - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-customer-emails-20170412-htmlstory.html)


Are UA still a great airline?

[Gauges and Dials]

there has been story after story emerging of similar incidents of bumping pax against their will with threats of arrest and violence.

"Data" is not the plural of "Anecdote"

Of course this story is going to flush out other United-specific stories.

We can't tell from these stories whether United is worse than, better than, or about the same as the other big carriers.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

It's not nearly that simple.

I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:


Down $500 in lost ticket sales.
Up $X in reduced fuel burn
Down $Y in lost loyalty; because I couldn't get my seat I try their competitor, and might like them and make the switch.
Up $Z in reduced risk of having to deal with a voluntary or involuntary denied boarding payout.


Not sure this is true. The no-show has paid for the seat and is unlikely to be refunded. The airline still has 100% income.
They then sell that seat to a standby passenger and have 105% income

As a loyal customer, would you not prefer to be told that the flight you wanted was full and you had that chance to make alternate arrangements or would you prefer to be sold a ticket which, when you get to the airport, you are told it will not be honoured .

I am sorry but overbooking just does not make any sense at all to me.
The stupidity of bumping 10% of your pax onto another flight does not save money, you still have to fly them AND you give them compensation.

[Chesty Morgan]

Its not some, its every airline that is successful enough to have full aircraft, it is standard practice throughout the industry. The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.

No it isn't. No they aren't.

[andrasz]

The no-show has paid for the seat and is unlikely to be refunded. The airline still has 100% income.
Wrong assumption. The no show was most probably a high fare flexible ticket passenger who decided to change travel plans and take another flight. Revenue went to that other flight, and this one left with an empty seat. Overbooking is done to ensure that this empty seat is filled.

Overbooking is a very complex art and if practiced correctly (usually by computer forecasting models that are specific to each and every flight) then the flight leaves close to full, with no denied boarding. I know of several routes where one must apply a 15-20% overbooking ratio and the flight will still departs with some empty seats.

Low cost airlines do not overbook, because their fare rules do not permit any change, and revenue truly stays with the airline on that particular flight even if the passenger elects not to fly.

[Gauges and Dials]

The airline still has 100% income.
They then sell that seat to a standby passenger and have 105% income.

I'm not clear what "100% income" means.

Work the arithmetic of my example again.

100 seat airplane. $500 tickets, all non-refundable. Sell 101 of them. One passenger no-shows. Revenue $50,500

Same 100 seat airplane. Sell only 100 tickets. One passenger no-shows. Revenue $50,000

[BusAirDriver]

Originally Posted by noflynomore:
However once selected this person clearly refused a lawful instruction from the crew to disembark

Lawful instruction? This was a Civil matter, the passenger was no threat, and was minding his own business until the Airport security / police came to have him removed.

How many millions have United made on over-bookings, where Pax have not showed up?

This is part of the game of over-bookings, you win some, you loose some. In this case the simple solution would have been for United to keep upping their offer until they had enough takers to accommodate United's crew DH.

It is very interesting to know on what grounds the Airport security / police was called to resolve this situation.
Also unfortunately there are sometimes overzealous ground agents and cabin crew, who feel extremely empowered with their position. And many Captains give their full support to Cabin Crews observations without taking a to close look at the actual events going on in their aircraft when on the ground.

Specially for less experienced Captains, such a situation can easily runaway from them, if lacking communication, life experience and certain service orientated skills.
I have seen situations where overbooking happen and passenger and managed to come onboard, and everybody turned on the passenger, ground handling, security and cabin crew, I found this incident disturbing, considering he was flying on holiday with his family, and he was bumped of, taken of by the police of the aircraft.

The point was that the passenger did not have a leg to stand on, as everybody was watching their own back, and the easy solution was to blame the passenger.

[DaveReidUK]

It's mildly depressing that here we are, nearly 40 years after the Airline Deregulation Act was passed, and we're seeing posts (presumably from professionals working in the industry) who don't seem to have a clue about the rationale for the practice of overbooking.

How hard is "it keeps fares lower" (or the corollary, "it keeps profits higher") to understand ?

[Gauges and Dials]

As a loyal customer, would you not prefer to be told that the flight you wanted was full and you had that chance to make alternate arrangements or would you prefer to be sold a ticket which, when you get to the airport, you are told it will not be honoured . .

You're looking at this in concrete terms rather than in probabilistic terms. That's not the choice I'm faced with. It's more like this:

As a loyal customer, would you rather pay x% less for your ticket, in return for facing a y% chance that you'll be denied a seat due to overbooking plus the airline's inability to find volunteers? In 2016, looking at American, United, and Delta, your chance of being involuntarily denied boarding was somewhere around one in 20,000 flight segments flown.

By how much would you need to discount my ticket to make me happy with a 1 in 20,000 chance of being denied boarding? Certainly 25 cents to a buck would do it for me.

[aox]

I'm not clear what "100% income" means.

Work the arithmetic of my example again.

100 seat airplane. $500 tickets, all non-refundable. Sell 101 of them. One passenger no-shows. Revenue $50,500

Same 100 seat airplane. Sell only 100 tickets. One passenger no-shows. Revenue $50,000

But not all fares are the same price, and one of four that provisionally booked a more expensive flexible fare on there is now taking an earlier or later flight. For a slight difference in price, not a whole new fare.

[Gauges and Dials]

It's well established by research that people's risk preference curves are asymmetrical.

"Pay me $1, and enjoy a 1 in 1 million chance of winning $1,000,000." - statistically, the two sides are exactly equal in value, and yet nearly everyone would take the bet.

"I'll pay you $1, in return for which you risk a 1 in 1 million chance of me taking $1,000,000 from you, or, if you haven't got that, your house, your possessions, your retirement savings." Also statistically exactly equal in value, and yet hardly anyone would take the bet.

How much more would you be willing to pay for an air ticket, to take away what published statistics indicate is about a 1 in 90,000 (Delta) to 1 in 20,000 (United, American) chance of IDB?

[Airbubba]

Airbubba - The CVR on most Embraer EJets runs for a perpetual two hours the moment the aircraft is powered up. The vital stuff would have been obliterated before it even departed. Also, don't get me wrong, but if my goose was cooking I'd be sorely tempted to press the erase button before I left the aircraft.



Thanks. I think it works that way on some modern Boeings as well but I didn't realize it until quite recently. I believe that erase button is a regulatory legacy of ALPA's begrudging acceptance of the CVR's half a century ago.

And, since the current nonvolatile CVR recoding technology seems to be a form of flash memory, is the erase really secure or can some of the audio later be forensically recovered? I seem to recall reading an NTSB report with an earlier CVR that commented that technology existed to recover audio that had been overwritten up to seven times.

The NTSB has long advocated routine auditing of the CVR to confirm compliance with standard operating procedures. From discussions here and elsewhere I think some non-U.S. carriers have already been doing this for many years.

ALPA understandably is less than enthusiastic about this idea:

ALPA Voices Adamant Opposition to Cockpit Voice Recorder Monitoring

ALPA Members Can Help

March 2, 2010 - ALPA this week voiced its intense opposition to proposals to monitor cockpit voice recorders to the traveling public, federal regulators, and Capitol Hill.

Alpa > Organizing > (http://www3.alpa.org/allegiantorganizing/tabid/3345/default.aspx)

The operating pilots in the ORD incident are Teamsters, not ALPA, but if the CVR ends up in court in an action with the pilots as respondents it seems to me that the claimed privacy protection of the recorded cockpit communications will be eroded for us all.

[SeenItAll]

It's mildly depressing that here we are, nearly 40 years after the Airline Deregulation Act was passed, and we're seeing posts (presumably from professionals working in the industry) who don't seem to have a clue about the rationale for the practice of overbooking.

How hard is "it keeps fares lower" (or the corollary, "it keeps profits higher") to understand ?

:ok:

The facts are these:

- Pretty much every airline all over the world overbooks.
- Overbooking, because it increases revenue yield per flight, reduces average ticket prices so long as airlines face at least some competition from each other.
- Overbooking is just one of many reasons why passengers may have to give up their "confirmed" seat. And none of these reasons for why passengers may have to give up their seat disappears just because a passenger may have already passed through the boarding wicket and sat down on the plane.
- The Internet is replete with stories from pax on every major airline about how they were unjustifiably (in their own minds, anyway) denied boarding or carriage on the flight they had booked.
- What constitutes egregious mistreatment of pax is very broad. While what happened to this particular pax on this UA flight likely qualifies, some believe that every pax on loco carriers such as (fill in the name of your favourite bottom-feeding cattle-car operator) are egregiously mistreated. And there are an awful lot of them.

[slf99]

The CVR is an investigators tool to be used in flight safety investigations.

It is not a tool designed and implemented for judicial actions not related to safety of flight.

All industry wide workers, especially including pilots are expected to speak out against the expansion of the use of a CVR for purely civil tort actions

As SLF, my flight safety starts as soon as I am on the aircraft.
If there is an incident on the ground, for whatever reason, and I am injured, why shouldn't the contents of the CVR, if operational, be used?

[Mr Optimistic]

I can't see the relevance of the CVR to this. All the protagonists are alive and there are plenty of witnesses. Overbooking also seems an entirely logical mechanism for commercial efficiency. Providing the carrier manages the situation properly, no reason to think that everyone can't end up content. The onus is on the carrier to manage. They certainly managed something in this circumstance.

Once boarded and seated there is an emotional difference. Now if you are selected the surprise factor is higher as you thought you were safe. You are also embarrassed as you know you are the loser, picked out of may be hundreds of people. Under their gaze you retrieve your stuff from the overhead and walk down that long aisle knowing the rest are thinking poor schmuck. Seems like a situation theat would better be avoided and one in which the emotional stakes have been raised unnecessarily.

[Mr Optimistic]

Guess we will just have to differ on this.

[Hotel Tango]

oldtora, I think you misunderstood the meaning of safe here. Safe as in I have taken my allocated seat as a fully booked passenger, therefore I don't expect to be bumped at this stage.

[Peter H]

oldtora
Even if he meets them merely half-way , and smiled , and said 'O.K. , now you owe me a different way to go home' , everyone would have improved their dayBut we already know that he was willing to accept an alternative flight, until he realised that it would not allow him to fulfil his hospital work schedule.

[armchairpilot94116]

UA lawyers must be having nightmares about the case going to trial and the jury awarding PUNITIVE damage in the hundreds of million of dollars.
(a good percentage of UA's last annual net income).

Munoz may be having nightmares about appearing in front of a Senate special committee and explaining calling the Doc "belligerent" and his thanking his people for going "Above and Beyond" (yes they went Above the law and beyond their scope) and being ridiculed for "re-accomodating" people.

If that happens he may be sacrificed by United, asked to quietly go or be told to GO!

[Mr Optimistic]

Ah yes, thank you HT. Ironic given it happened he wasn't safe in any interpretation of the word!

[Piper_Driver]

I think the only relevance of the CVR in this case might be discussions on the flight deck pertaining to the summoning of the security folks, or the discussion of the aftermath. In either case I would argue that this goes beyond the charter of the CVR.

[Mr Optimistic]

The people are available to ask, should it be deemed relevant and in any conversation there are at least two witnesses. I could understand the industry feelings against the relevance of the CVR.

[Gauges and Dials]

The PAX's safety is not in question . Even if he meets them merely half-way , and smiled , and said 'O.K. , now you owe me a different way to go home' , everyone would have improved their day . :cool:

Actually, not everyone would have improved their day. There are passengers traveling today, tomorrow, and so on, who, had Dr. Dao quietly acquiesced, would have been abused by United, but now United will be a bit more careful about following the law and its own ToC.

[mary meagher]

I have always flown United from LHR to Dulles, and then on to family scattered over the US on the regional airlines that go to the smaller cities. Service on the smaller aircraft like the Embraer involved in this incident can be limited. Cabin crew can be overworked.
As others have posted, the system of overbooking ensures maximum use of the fleet. Calling for volunteers to step off for suitable compensation is still the best way to cope if everybody does show up who booked for that flight.

Apparently three seated pax had volunteered to take another flight, and the good doctor also apparently volunteered, but his wife was traveling with him and he changed his mind. When the cabin crew asked the computer then to choose by lottery a fourth pax to step off the plane, Dr. Dao's name came up.

I also wonder if the computer preferred to select a "volunteer" who had no baggage in the hold....

[Mr Optimistic]

In which case the computer may wish not to separate two passengers with a shared surname.....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Once Upon A Time the no-show high-paying flexible ticket holders used to be dealt with by something called "standby". When the flight was notionally full, you got sold a "standby" ticket, which entitled you to stand by the bottom of the steps, wait until no more confirmed passengers turned up, then get into the aircraft.


I was never denied boarding on a standby ticket, but if I had been


(a) it would have happened before I'd got onto the aircraft
(b) I wouldn't have been upset, because I knew exactly what I was buying.

[newfoundglory]

How can we find out what has happened to the emergency court petition ?

[InSoMnIaC]

So the need to position crew to somewhere to operate another flight (ie a commercial consideration) caused all of this to happen. All they needed to do to remedy the situation was to OFFER MORE MONEY TO VOLUNTEER. There would have been plenty of ppl willing to rake a couple of grand and a hotel. Pay whatever rhe price is to attract willing participants. As a last resort, offload your own positioning crew and cancel the next flight.

[Airbubba]

How can we find out what has happened to the emergency court petition ?

This what I see so far on the Court's website, it's Greek to a country boy like me. :confused:

Looks like some sort of call set up on August 10, 2017.

Now, about that ad damnum...

Case Information Summary for Case Number
2017-CH-05227


Filing Date: 04/12/2017

Case Type: GENERAL CHANCERY
Division: Chancery Division

District: First Municipal
Ad Damnum: $0.00

Calendar: 09
Party Information

Plaintiff(s)

Attorney(s)
DAO DAVID A

CORBOY & DEMETRIO
33 N DEARBORN 21STFL
CHICAGO IL, 60602
(312) 346-3191

Defendant(s)
Defendant Date of Service
Attorney(s)
MUNICIPAL CORPRATION [sic]

UNITED AIRLINES INC
CITY CHICAGO

Case Activity

Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
GENERAL CHANCERY FILED
Court Fee:
368.00
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO

Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
Date:
08/10/2017
Court Time:
0900
Court Room:
2008
Judge:
TAILOR SANJAY T
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO


https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.aspx?DocketKey=CABH0CH0AFCCH0CH

[HEMS driver]

Fox News this evening is still calling this an OVERBOOKED flight. It WAS NOT OVERBOOKED! It was FULL. :ugh:

[Mr Optimistic]

I don't think anyone involved expected or dreamt this would happen. In retrospect there are any number of ways this could have been avoided but, to the people there, this eventuality wasn't remotely anticipated. Passengers boarded, CC trying to get everything ready, then a request to find X seats. Seems they found X-1 without issue. Final one, chosen by algorithm, pushes back. Argues, won't budge. So CC walk back annoyed that their rightful request has been ignored.Think how can I make this guy realise I am within my rights and he must stand, walk and go. OK, I'll find someone in uniform with 'security' on their vest to make the point. That will convince him. Never think the security guys anticipate they will only be called upon when muscle power is needed and with that mindset they board the aircraft.

Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.

[Basil]

The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!

[DaveReidUK]

All they needed to do to remedy the situation was to OFFER MORE MONEY TO VOLUNTEER.

You don't say.

If we had a dollar for every time that obvious suggestion has been made on this thread, we'd have collected enough to get the whole cabin to voluntarily deplane. :O

[HEMS driver]

I don't think anyone involved expected or dreamt this would happen. In retrospect there are any number of ways this could have been avoided but, to the people there, this eventuality wasn't remotely anticipated. Passengers boarded, CC trying to get everything ready, then a request to find X seats. Seems they found X-1 without issue. Final one, chosen by algorithm, pushes back. Argues, won't budge. So CC walk back annoyed that their rightful request has been ignored.Think how can I make this guy realise I am within my rights and he must stand, walk and go. OK, I'll find someone in uniform with 'security' on their vest to make the point. That will convince him. Never think the security guys anticipate they will only be called upon when muscle power is needed and with that mindset they board the aircraft.

Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.

That sums it up nicely, and for decades the sheeple have been compliant and accepted the airlines' worthless vouchers and submissively left the aircraft, and likely in many cases to be replaced by AIRLINE EMPLOYEES.

Finally, someone not only says no, but hell no. Because the flight crew always uses badges to remove lawfully removable pax (drunk, etc.), they call the cops on Dr. Dao.:=:=:=

How did that work out, United? Cha ching.

[SalNichols]

This case will indeed go to trial.United may want to settle, hell it's in their best interest to settle. However, Dr. Dao's attorney is the one dictating the terms, including compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is easy...hospital and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin, imagine what you can rx for fractured sinuses received at the hands of an airline and police to remove you from an airplane that you had boarded and on which you were peacefully waiting to depart.

The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.

BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.

[slats11]

@ Turbine D

slats11,
Quote:
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).

“Puny-Wrap” Insurance


Yes there may well be a policy for punitive damages. This will have lots of fine print and exclusions.

So I agree with you the defendants will be doing their very best to reach a (generous) settlement, and avoid a trial with all the costs and risks and unknowns that entails (including the risk of punitive damages).

The problem may be that the pax is now sufficiently upset and angry that it has gone beyond mere $$$ and he wants his day in court.

The CEO has been quoted as saying he has been unsuccessful in trying to contact the pax. Not a hopeful sign.

[slf99]

The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
If a CVR is for "accident investigation" only, is Basil saying this was not an accident, i.e. it was deliberate?
Or is he saying that CVRs are only relevant to incidents involving metal being bent, not simply passengers?
In the UA case there is a probability that the airline and its servants (and that includes the captain) may have acted illegally, not simply committing a civil tort, and consequently a passenger was injured. What is the difference between this situation and an illegal event taking place in the air, or indeed taxiing on the field? Surely the line must be drawn once a passenger is on board and under the safety of the captain? Or does Basil think that the captain is not responsible when the plane is still at the gate? Surely not. It is the captain who, for example, would have to manage an evacuation in the event of a fire caused by refuelling whilst the aircraft is still on the ramp, and presumably that is why the captain tells us to keep our seat belts unfastened during refuellling....
Basil, the buck starts when the SLF are on board. Thus the CVR contents start being relevant at the same time in my book.

[Mr Optimistic]

The CVR is relevant when you need to understand what happened on the FD before all the participants died. If they are here, standing in front of you, just ask them. Point was made how would you like it if every curse, fart and incorrect utterance could be recalled and used by the company.

[HEMS driver]

Apologies if already posted, Life's too short to back track the whole thread.

"Pentagon give contract to United to remove Assad" .....( scroll down )

Syria issues travel ban on U.S. missiles (http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/04/syria-issues-travel-ban-u-s-missiles/)

Sorry, but www.duffelblog.com (http://www.duffleblog.com) is a satirical web site, i.e. fake news. :cool:

[slf99]

The CVR is relevant when you need to understand what happened on the FD before all the participants died. If they are here, standing in front of you, just ask them. Point was made how would you like it if every curse, fart and incorrect utterance could be recalled and used by the company.
As an injured passenger, not expecting a necessarily straight answer from the people standing in front of me, I think I would like to hear every curse, fart and incorrect utterance. So would my lawyers. The CVR would surely only be made available in the event of an accident anyway, so what have the flight deck to worry about? Or don't they regard someone being injured in the cabin behind them as an "accident"? I think it is for others to determine that after the event.

[Airbubba]

Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?

It's pretty much legal in the U.S. I'm afraid.

From a recent article on employee monitoring in a human resources industry association magazine:

Under Federal Law

Employers generally have the right to monitor employees as they perform their work, although eavesdropping is a gray area. According to National Workrights Institute President Lewis Maltby, location matters. “If an employer wants to put a microphone in an office area and listen to what everybody does all day, that’s perfectly legal,” he says. “But you can’t put a bug in the cafeteria where people are talking about personal issues.”

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0615-employee-monitoring.aspx

Actually, some years ago FedEx pilots did find listening devices in the cafeteria during one of their unionization struggles as I recall.

I agree, I would hope that the promise made decades ago would be kept. That is, if we would agree to the CVR, it would never be used for anything except improving safety.

But, being somewhat cynical with experience, I know that often these well intended innovations and reporting programs can morph into something else over time.

[Mr Optimistic]

With respect, and in respect to the CVR, I think you are missing the point. You want to know what happened, you want to know who said what, when and to whom. Fine. May I suggest that you just ask them, bearing in mind that every conversation has at least two witnesses available to you ? In what circumstances do you think you would need to pull the CVR in this case? If you need to understand why 250 bodies are lying on the ocean floor ok, but in this pathetic example of US cultural goat f+ck?

[HEMS driver]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned, is that the CVR also records conversations between the cabin and the flight deck on the internal telephone system, i.e. between F/As and pilots and F/As and F/As. Those conversations could be quite revealing.

[PaxBritannica]

As someone who's flown frequently and worldwide for five decades, I was surprised to learn that I could be asked to deplane for non-safety reasons once I've boarded and strapped myself in. I've always accepted that I could be 'bumped' at the gate if, say, seats on the plane were unusable for some reason, but I'd assumed that once I'd put my luggage in the overhead locker and started reading the safety card, the airline had 'accepted' me. I've never encountered an on-board bumping, even flying internally in the USA (the one milieu where US airlines cannot be avoided, sadly). If I was asked to deplane for some kind of financial recompense, and declined the offer, I would expect that to be the end of the matter as far as I was concerned. If I was asked more aggressively to get off, I'd be alarmed, indignant and scared. If I was then confronted by three large men in jeans who spoke menacingly and laid hands on me, I'd be deeply confused on top of being alarmed, indignant and scared. I'd have no idea that the airline had legal small print in its favour, as I've never read the small print for any of the many airlines I've flown, like 99.999% of passengers. I wouldn't have a ticket to read -
like many people I'd be travelling with just a barcode/boarding card on my smartphone. I'm fairly sure I'd resist, purely on the basis that I was safer on a plane full of people than in a secluded part of the airport with these three large, threatening men whose link to official police seemed unconvincing. I'd be especially scared if I were elderly (actually, I am), small (yup, that too), and Asian (I'm not) in a country where Asian people had been attacked or murdered in 'safe' situations. So this man's reaction seems wholly understandable to me, and the idea that he should have smiled and gone along with the whole deal sounds like the view of someone inured to unquestioning obedience.

As someone who married into a family of aviation professionals, I'm not so surprised at the attitudes of some posters here. Aviation is a peculiar industry in that it can only provide a safe service if its employees adhere absolutely to rules and SOPs, and obey others without question. However, the industry exists for the sole purpose of servicing human beings who are NOT trained in that strict obedience. Moreover, airlines are hugely keen to sell themselves on the basis of providing a comfortable and effortless service - the last thing they want is pax feeling intimidated by quasi-military authoritarianism. I can see why those who must conform to strict rules and discipline resent those who don't - but the resentment is unfair and irrational. Airlines can't exist without passengers, and passengers are simply people paying money to get from one place to another, not volunteers enlisting in the marines.

[slf99]

With respect, and in respect to the CVR, I think you are missing the point. You want to know what happened, you want to know who said what, when and to whom. Fine. May I suggest that you just ask them, bearing in mind that every conversation has at least two witnesses available to you ? In what circumstances do you think you would need to pull the CVR in this case? If you need to understand why 250 bodies are lying on the ocean floor ok, but in this pathetic example of US cultural goat f+ck?

Hopefully, Mr Optimistic, you are not on any flight deck. If you are, then your concern should be to ensure that none of your passengers are injured, but if they are, you should be fully co-operating so that it can be understood what happened and how it can be prevented in the future. "Pathetic example" as you put it? What, with concussion, broken nose, two broken teeth and damaged sinuses all happening on your aircraft and your worry is someone snooping on you? Please get out of the industry where 99.999999% of the guys up front really do care about us SLF.

[speedbirdconcorde]

This case will indeed go to trial.United may want to settle, hell it's in their best interest to settle. However, Dr. Dao's attorney is the one dictating the terms, including compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is easy...hospital and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin, imagine what you can rx for fractured sinuses received at the hands of an airline and police to remove you from an airplane that you had boarded and on which you were peacefully waiting to depart.

The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.

BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.
Absolutely the best reply yet. And, as with yourself, so tired of the arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful posts that litter the channel. Cheers.

[BusAirDriver]

"oldtora" Are you for real? Or are you just a troll?

I have seen 3 - 4 different videos of the incident, and not in one of them is he having a hissy fit or being violent.

Only when he is assaulted by the security/police, does he start screaming, and judging by his injuries we can understand why, the guy is 69 years old, please dont be a complete fool "oldtora"

In addition I would believe the 3 others, will probably be lawyerd up soon if not already, as they also have a strong case as they was most likely unlawfully disembarked of the aircraft, and they was not volunteers either, as it seems.

Anyone still defending UA's actions against this passenger, and who believes SkyGod can dismiss anyone he wants from the flight deck, needs to take a step down from his/her cloud.

[Mr Optimistic]

Nope, just pax. Please stand back and reconsider. All I am saying is that all participants are here and available for cross examination. Given that, why is the CVR given so many posts? All the action was in the passenger cabin where the CC rule. Is there a CVR recording what they said?

[Mr Optimistic]

No. No. No. Even as cynical and pessimistic as I am I acknowledge that no one goes to work anticipating failure. No one wanted to do harm.

[ZFT]

Cpt B
Sorry
Working for a LoCo, that never overbooks and does not do stby tqts.
Or connecting flights, DG ,Animals, UM , LongHaul, CodeShare or diffrent classes for that mater.
Just from A to B , on time! Most times!

If the Big Guys let a full fare PAX travel a day late after a noshow with no notice/rebooking, then they do have a strange set up.
What do I know, just been flying for 29 years .
And what I have seen as a customer after 9/11 is sad.

Watching this Corporate Crash Investigation unfold the last days in hyperdrive , is rather envigorateing , I must say!
The stress and the false use of the security card of all involved has turned off the pax bigtime.
Lets hope something positive comes out of this.

Regards Cpt Bhttp://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif I spent 6 extremely pleasant years working for 3 then majors in the States in the 80’s when travelling was (almost) a pleasure. Pre 9/11 so no restrictions on meet and great at the gate, no TSA, cabin crew who smiled and seemed to enjoy making the journey as comfortable as possible etc.. Yes, there was overbooking then but is seemed to be handled with care and the customer was treated as the customer.

I have spent all of the 21st century in an environment where customer service is still paramount and like you I too hope something really positive comes out of this whereby attitudes change and ground staff and cabin crew remember what their purpose is.

In many ways, the US travelling public have brought this on themselves with the race to the bottom on prices and the inevitable erosion of service, often under the guise of safety and security. Whether they will now accept the inevitable (modest) price increase to offset the cost of improved conditions remains to be seen.

I would also hope that non US carriers looking to further erode conditions (10 abreast 777 seating, BoB and the like) will also take note that there does come a point when even the most docile of passengers do rebel.

[Piper_Driver]

And what happens when United violates its own rules and federal law? Should the public meekly obey and take token vouchers for their trouble? Commands by flight crew are only binding when they are lawful.

[HEMS driver]

Thanks MickJoeBill , you are a cool breeze of agreement for my lonely position , that UA , no matter how arbitrary , makes the rules , and the police enforce those rules , and the pax might as well go along and avoid chaos .

The police can not legally enforce the CoC for the airlines in the U.S. The contractural relationship between the passenger (customer) and the airline is a civil contract.

Ordering a sober/non-terrorist/non-security risk/ticketed/ and seated passenger to leave the cabin to accommodate airline employees is outside the terms of the CoC.

Just because "it's always been done that way" does not make it legal.

[Photonic]

All I'm saying is that pax have an obligation to meekly follow the reasonable rules of UA and the police , even if UA staff are not the brightest light bulbs . And UA cannot fly with more pax than there are seats . So , if someone is selected to leave , that's the way it is , end of story . If I am in a cloud to suggest meek cooperation as a way to get along , then I am in my cloud , happy and without the chaos about me at ORD . If it had been me , I would have meekly left the aircraft . Think about it

I think many of us here are thinking what we might have done in that situation. If I had been in that situation with a confirmed reservation and already belted in, politey refusing financial compensation to give up my seat, I would have left my seat before the Doctor did. Because I know what happens when the LEO shows up. But not before some angry exchanges like the following:

"Why are you selecting me instead of that guy over there? Are you profiling me because I'm Asian?" (not applicable in my case, but it's an option, and perfectly understandable under the circumstances).

"I'm traveling with my wife. Why are you breaking us up, when you only need one seat?"

"Give me a minute to write down your name (and badge number, if it's LEO) for further action. You and everyone up your chain of command will hear from my attorneys, and whatever local TV station is interested (the real threat)." And then leaning over to my wife, "You've got all this on your smartphone, right?"

And then I'd get up and leave. It's a long way from "meek" compliance, and it looks like this is what a paying passenger is required to do these days to get reasonable service for their money.

[WingNut60]

.. If you purchase an economy ticket on UA for the last flight home on a Sunday .........

It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.

[Matt48]

Have these clowns at UAL ever heard the old adage that 'the customer is king', we don't pay your wages, the customer does.

[Matt48]

The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
Most 'offices' don't have jet engines strapped to them and find themselves 8 miles up in the sky either.

[parabellum]

Perhaps it's a wake up call that the violent response by US police to minor incidents has reached an epidemic?

The thug who physically removed the Doctor from the flight was employed by the airport security services, he was an ex policeman and had history. He was not a serving police officer, nor was he a United Airlines employee.

[Matt48]

It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.
Perhaps UAL could have put their own 'slf' on that later flight, seeing as how it's only a one hour flight and the relocating crew didn't have to report for work until the next day.

[parabellum]

and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin,

Putting things back in perspective, the award to the lady who spilled hot coffee, (and was quite seriously injured), was reduced on appeal. Damages awarded by a sympathetic jury are frequently reduced on appeal when only the appeal court judges make the decisions, being a long time after the original court case such information is no longer 'hot' news.

[WHBM]

Now the nature of the injuries inflicted on the passenger are coming to light (two teeth knocked out, broken nose, serious concussion) I cannot believe the US criminal (not civil) legal system has achieved nothing. Apparently the perpetrator is just on "administrative leave". Whyever have they not been arrested for a serious assault and put into custody ?

The injuries are also not particularly consistent with the grab and pull from seat that we saw. To me, they sound more like someone who has been taken round the corner into the jetway and then been given a good "seeing to" by a group of giggling thugs.

[Matt48]

It also sounds like people for decades have allowed themselves to be bullied into submission in violation on the CoCs that they did not have intimate knowledge of.
Yes, it seems the 'SLF' are indeed wising up to the bully boy tactics, as well as the contempt we are held in by some smarties up the pointy end, things are changing.

[parabellum]

As the doctor was pulled from his seat his head came down very heavily on an adjacent arm rest and I think you will find that is where the injuries occurred.

[421dog]

The thug who physically removed the Doctor from the flight was employed by the airport security services, he was an ex policeman and had history. He was not a serving police officer, nor was he a United Airlines employee.

Actually, they ARE sworn police officers. (According to the Chicago Tribune article from today that I can't link). They just aren't allowed to carry guns. They are their own agency, but, according to the article, function under the command umbrella of CPD, TSA, ICE, and
Federal Protective Services.

[WHBM]

As the doctor was pulled from his seat his head came down very heavily on an adjacent arm rest and I think you will find that is where the injuries occurred.
I think those of us who recall the old police line "during the arrest the prisoner unfortunately fell awkwardly and that is why he has these injuries all over" will at least be raising eyebrows ...

[Airbubba]

The thug who physically removed the Doctor from the flight was employed by the airport security services, he was an ex policeman and had history. He was not a serving police officer, nor was he a United Airlines employee.

Actually, all three of those guys are police officers with the Chicago Department of Aviation. They are required to stay proficient with firearms but aren't allowed to carry them. They are not part of the Chicago Police Department, maybe that's what got you confused.

[p.j.m]

The injuries are also not particularly consistent with the grab and pull from seat that we saw. To me, they sound more like someone who has been taken round the corner into the jetway and then been given a good "seeing to" by a group of giggling thugs.

When you looked at the video, he was pulled out of his seat, and his face smashed into the armrest on the other side of the aisle. This would be when the broken teeth, nose, blood and his unconsciousness came from. Dragging him along the aisle would have been the only option as he was unconscious from that impact.

[p.j.m]

As the doctor was pulled from his seat his head came down very heavily on an adjacent arm rest and I think you will find that is where the injuries occurred.

yes, that was what I saw in the video too.

[Ranger One]

The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!

I would agree. But there's something you've missed here. The allegations in court are (IMHO; IANAL) very likely to include conspiracy. That the company and/or the security agents and/or a diverse range of United employees etc. conspired to have 'my client' assaulted and wrongfully arrested etc etc.

The CVR may provide important exculpatory evidence for the flight deck crew. And whether the contents are exculpatory or not it would almost certainly have to be produced in any case as part of discovery proceedings. If it still exists of course...

[Gauges and Dials]

There are many situations where PAX inflexibility in face of authority will NEVER work
But in this case, it appears to be working splendidly. Actual change may come of it.
Arguing with authority is invariably a waste of time and effort .

I'm sure that there are large numbers of Indians and African Americans (among others) who would point to the last 75 years or so and take rather strong exception to your position.

[Ranger One]

Thanks for the explanation , old carthusian . You point out that I missed the point that he had a ticket . Oh he had a ticket ? Yep , but there are only so many seats , so someone must deplane . The previously efficient UA , now unable to explain to the pax that he is ' it ' , and the pax unable to accept that he is ' it ' , cannot agree .

Except there IS no 'it' because United have no provision in their contract of carriage which allows them to compel an individual passenger to deplane unless certain particular circumstances arise - none of which apply in this case. "someone must deplane" you say. Incorrect. In these circumstances no-one 'must' deplane. As I and many others have pointed out throughout this discussion.

[Gauges and Dials]

MY solution would be to lean across the aisle and tell the PAX that I (myself) volunteer to leave , and that it's all right for him (PAX) to calm down now ; and then I will tell the police that I volunteer

The mass graves of history are jam-packed with the bones of those who shared your perspective.

[lomapaseo]

The CVR may provide important exculpatory evidence for the flight deck crew. And whether the contents are exculpatory or not it would almost certainly have to be produced in any case as part of discovery proceedings. If it still exists of course...

I do not believe that purely civil tort cases may assume the the CVR has to be produced .

It was designed and installed as a regulatory requirement to serve a specific purpose. To extend that purpose should necessarily require cooperation by the FAA and I doubt that they will accede.

I also don't believe that United can control it's custody either.

The best thing that can happen here is for the CVR to be bulked erased and re-installed for continued use since no restrictions are placed against its reuse by the Feds.

I can't help but think that any court actions (to be filed) would not include the operator of the flight nor it's equipment.

[Old Carthusian]

Thanks for the explanation , old carthusian . You point out that I missed the point that he had a ticket . Oh he had a ticket ? Yep , but there are only so many seats , so someone must deplane . The previously efficient UA , now unable to explain to the pax that he is ' it ' , and the pax unable to accept that he is ' it ' , cannot agree . So the police come , and the pax remains unable to accept that he is ' it ' , and they cannot agree . So what would be YOUR solution ? How would old carthusian resolve the disagreement ? MY solution would be to lean across the aisle and tell the PAX that I (myself) volunteer to leave , and that it's all right for him (PAX) to calm down now ; and then I will tell the police that I volunteer

oldtora

Once again I should remind you we are not talking about the police but airport security - a different bunch of people.

The ticket is an important detail as not only had it been accepted by United and the passenger had been allowed to board but under its conditions he was within his rights to insist that United carry him or offer him adequate compensation. The latter did not happen so he insisted that United carry him for what most would consider quite valid reasons. United themselves have acknowledged this to be the situation (Munoz's most recent statement) and promised that this kind of situation will never happen again. That part of the argument is over. What part of 'United had no right to ask the passenger to leave' do you not understand? As for my solution which no doubt will happen from now on is that the passenger if they do not wish to vacate the flight having already boarded and have a valid ticket is carried.

[Cloudee]

For you people still saying the Doc was in the wrong. Have you not listened to the CEO apologising? Can you not understand they had no lawfull reason to remove him, therefore everything that followed was illegal?

This man's stubborn behaviour has changed the way SLF are treated for the better. It may cost a couple of dollars more, I personally don't care and will be happy that once I'm on the aircraft as SLF, I'm a bit less likely to be bumped off.

[rob_ginger]

There have been a few posts mentioning the change in the US since 9/11. Well you can stop looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses - America's descent into authoritarianism had started well before then.

I went to Hawaii with my wife for a holiday in the early 1980's, and I was shocked at the aggressive attitude of the immigration officials. I'm Australian - you know, the country that said "All the way with LBJ", sent troops to Viet Nam, and subsequently to Afghanistan an Iraq. I vowed then never to go back. And it's even worse now:

Mem Fox, Australian author, gets apology after being wrongfully detained at LA airport - Donald Trump's America - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at-los-angeles-airport-by-us-officials/8303366)

And I the ineptitude of the UA staff is just breathtaking. By contrast, I remember a Qantas domestic flight a few years ago, where a minor incident was handled very cleverly by experienced and professional CC. An economy class passenger had popped his oversized carry-on suitcase into a Business class overhead locker on his way down to the back of the plane. The steward (with a grin on his face) announced that there was an unidentified bag on the plane, and that in accordance with airline regulations it would taken off unless claimed. Embarassed passenger came up from the back of the plane to collect it. Job done, no drama.

I'm not for one second condoning bad behaviour under any circumstances. But, when you treat paying passengers like why are you surprised when some of them act badly?

[India Four Two]

WIRED article:
How United Turned the Friendly Skies Into a Flying Hellscape

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/uniteds-greed-turned-friendly-skies-flying-hellscape/?mbid=nl_41317_p3&CNDID=18840833

Interesting history that I wasn't aware of.

[slats11]

I'm obviously missing something here. The CEO has apologised and said it was wrong and won't happen again. The CofC don't seem to give an airline the authority to deplane after boarding. The LEO may not even have had jurisdiction.

And plenty of people here saying the guy should have meekly complied to a request which appears to have been unlawful. Sure he could have complied. But don't we remember and celebrate those that have made a stand as a matter of principle. Like sitting in the front of a bus, or standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.

Has US now become the land of the fearful and the home of the downtrodden?

[DaveReidUK]

It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.

I was wondering about that, too.

United have 5 ORD-SDF flights most days.

Of course it may just have been that the intervening flights were full, but coincidentally (or not) only 2 of those 5 UAs (the flight the doctor was on and the afternoon one they wanted to bump him onto) are operated by Republic.

The other three are flown by different codeshare partners (1 x Skywest, 2 x Trans States).

Does anyone know if there could have been some revenue-related reason why United would have avoided giving him a seat on, say, the late evening flight ? If so, then we'd be looking at United's inflexibility having started off the whole farrago.

Having said that, even if there were no earlier seats available, it beggars belief that United clearly couldn't care less about the impact of delaying a passenger nearly 24 hours.

[robdean]

Here's a blogged analysis of the case by a Professor of Law (at Cornell):

Dorf on Law: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger (http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html)

[Airbubba]

A legal question I have is won't this case end up in federal district court due to diversity and interstate commerce?

Or, can it stay in state court even though Dr. Dao is a Kentucky resident and many of the issues of the deplaning seem to be covered by federal law?

[DaveReidUK]

A legal question I have is won't this case end up in federal district court due to diversity and interstate commerce?

Or, can it stay in state court even though Dr. Dao is a Kentucky resident and many of the issues of the deplaning seem to be covered by federal law?

There was a reference to which court would have jurisdiction during yesterday's press conference given by Dao's attorney. A county court was mentioned, I think, but I don't recall which one.

United Airlines Passenger David Dao's Attorney Holds Press Conference | TIME (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQvSSF0gEs)

[Airbubba]

I think the initial filing for discovery is in the Circuit Court of Cook County. I'm wondering if the case will eventually end up in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

[SalNichols]

The UA pilots union has weighed in and they place the blame on the Chicago Airport authority. In the opinion of the UA pilots, using ARMED CPD officers would have yielded a different outcome. I happen to agree with the union...Dr. Dao would likely be dead from either multiple tasings, or a GSW. UA's pilots union may be outraged, but their head is clearly up their back passage. The blame is clearly on the UA process. This never should have reached ANY law enforcement authority to resolve what was clearly a company generated problem. As a matter of public policy, I resent like hell ANY corporation using law enforcement to clean up their fark ups. UA, you caused it, YOU own it. Everything else is just noise. When you're already in a hole, you ought to quit digging.

[AmericanFlyer]

This case will indeed go to trial.United may want to settle, hell it's in their best interest to settle. However, Dr. Dao's attorney is the one dictating the terms, including compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is easy...hospital and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin, imagine what you can rx for fractured sinuses received at the hands of an airline and police to remove you from an airplane that you had boarded and on which you were peacefully waiting to depart.

The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.

BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.

I strongly agree that the term Self Loading Freight has to go. It is arrogant, elitist, and demeaning, and has no place here.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I happen to agree with the union...Dr. Dao would likely be dead from either multiple tasings, or a GSW. UA's pilots union may be outraged, but their head is clearly up their back passage.

It is the UA pilots union that created this situation, assault and actual bodily harm, from what I have read they are so inflexible, they insist that crew positioning/deadheading must be by scheduled service thus eliminating any other option for all the UA ground staff concerned, they couldn't possibly charter an aircraft or even a limousine to move the crew because UA pilots union had outlawed such an option.

When are these people going to ever learn to stop digging holes for themselves?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... but it is always a potentially intimidating experience, given that the Immigration officer has ultimate authority and I have essentially no rights.
Particularly the way one guy had hand hovering over his gun, obviously just dying for an excuse to use it.

[etudiant]

It is the UA pilots union that created this situation, assault and actual bodily harm, from what I have read they are so inflexible, they insist that crew positioning/deadheading must be by scheduled service thus eliminating any other option for all the UA ground staff concerned, they couldn't possibly charter an aircraft or even a limousine to move the crew because UA pilots union had outlawed such an option.

When are these people going to ever learn to stop digging holes for themselves?

In fairness to the UA unions, their attitudes surely reflect the management they have to deal with.
Things can be improved, Gordon Bethune proved it when he resurrected Continental, but it requires a focus on people even ahead of profit.,

[newfoundglory]

Interesting comments from the professor of law.

But isn't the captain the one responsible - not wanting to pass blame on any particular person of course - there have been plenty of instances when captains have asked pax to leave the aircraft on the ground.

It seems that while the union are morally correct, isn't the captain the one who is technically and legally responsible?

[TowerDog]

. But isn't the captain the one responsible -

The Captain is not involved in the boarding process, nor responsible
For how the boarding goes.

[newfoundglory]

It seems that airlines (in general) have not been particularly bothered about terminating contracts, using Captain's authority and law enforcement if necessary.

I would suggest that any court will take a very dim view of this behaviour indeed and, if proven to be the case, punitive damages (in the high millions, or hundreds of millions) would actually be appropriate.

This is another good example: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-attempted-throw-another-passenger-170009715.html

I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat. If the CoC were changed to make this possible, I think that would be an unfair contractual term which I hope a court would disregard in future cases like this.

[DaveReidUK]

I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat.

You can under certain circumstances (passenger is drunk, aggressive, violent, etc), though those clearly didn't apply in this case.

[sitigeltfel]

Particularly the way one guy had hand hovering over his gun, obviously just dying for an excuse to use it.

If you had spent any time carrying a sidearm in confined, crowded spaces you would know to keep your hand over it to stop it snagging on something​ and more importantly, to guard against someone trying to snatch it.

[portmanteau]

The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain. Captains that I knew on hearing of the problem in its early stages would have made it their business to get involved and thus avoided the need for forcible evac. Having had the situ explained to him by the Captain in a conversation between two reasonable people, the Dr might well have agreed to leave, under protest. If he didnt agree, I believe the Captains I knew would have announced that he must be allowed to remain and that one of the other solutions be adopted instead.

[WhatAStory]

Here's a blogged analysis of the case by a Professor of Law (at Cornell):

Dorf on Law: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger (http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html)

Thank you for that link. The article gives an important legal clarification to the term 'deny-boarding' and possibly explains why a number of professionals on here continue to misinterpret the phrase as 'refuse to transport'.

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

[omnis]

When you looked at the video, he was pulled out of his seat, and his face smashed into the armrest on the other side of the aisle. This would be when the broken teeth, nose, blood and his unconsciousness came from. Dragging him along the aisle would have been the only option as he was unconscious from that impact.

Oh, I don't know, I think most basic first aid courses suggest a whole range of more appropriate care strategies for looking after the injured. DR ABC comes to mind, he could have had spinal damage or breathing trouble, anything. Duty of care?

[The Range]

Harry,
UA pilots union had nothing to do here. It was a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines.
And I think the captain could have prevented the violent removal of the pax.

[Ranger One]

I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat.

Absolutely you can deplane an individual passenger. If they contravene the CoC.

Or you can deplane an entire load if there's some reason to do so (Crew goes sick, plane goes sick, weather goes sick, bomb threat etc).

What you cannot do is single out an individual pax for deplaning if they haven't contravened the CoC and there's no other term in the contract permitting this to occur. That seems to be the situation here. (And was the situation in that other story which is doing the rounds concerning the first class United passenger who was threatened with the Dr. Dao treatment if they refused to vacate their already-taken seat for a 'higher priority' first class pax who had shown up at the last minute).

[newfoundglory]

I completely agree that drunk, violent and aggressive behaviour can and should be removed (but this can be dealt with under other areas of the law). If the plane is tech or there is a security incident, then that seems pretty obvious.

But the CoC is cloudy area.

How do you know if the CoC are enforceable terms and not unfair terms?

How do you know if a court would decide the terms had been breached?

You don't.

So in minor cases, would it not be wiser the carry the pax and then seek redress against the pax in court after the event?

[Amadis of Gaul]

The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain.

I can't tell you how much I want to believe that.

[Loggerheads]

Why should he have listened to anyone? I just don't get this lets worship airline employees and let them undermine our own self respect.

The doc was entirely within his rights, shame on all those involved. How do 3 burly guys bring themselves to treat any human being like that, never mind a 69 year old one? As for those heroes supporting the henchmens' actions, it says a lot about you.

[parabellum]

It has always been my understanding that captains total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.

[421dog]

The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain...

Many regional flight crew are early in their careers, and are a ways away from Robert Staak or John Wayne-like Sky God status.
One can appreciate a certain hesitation prior to jumping headlong into a potentially sticky situation, especially considering the sacrifices made to achieve that status as flight crew, and the questionable jurisdiction and utility of becoming involved.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Harry,
UA pilots union had nothing to do here. It was a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines.
And I think the captain could have prevented the violent removal of the pax.

Were the deadheading crew, for which this passenger was so violently and illegally removed, were that crew United crew or Republic crew?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by WingNut60 http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-post9739578.html#post9739578) It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.
I was wondering about that, too.

United have 5 ORD-SDF flights most days.

Of course it may just have been that the intervening flights were full, but coincidentally (or not) only 2 of those 5 UAs (the flight the doctor was on and the afternoon one they wanted to bump him onto) are operated by Republic.

The other three are flown by different codeshare partners (1 x Skywest, 2 x Trans States).

Does anyone know if there could have been some revenue-related reason why United would have avoided giving him a seat on, say, the late evening flight ? If so, then we'd be looking at United's inflexibility having started off the whole farrago.

Having said that, even if there were no earlier seats available, it beggars belief that United clearly couldn't care less about the impact of delaying a passenger nearly 24 hours.
There have been numerous instances reported of passengers being bumped in the USA onto the "next flight" which turns out, once they are got out of the queue and over to the desk, to be one actually several flights away, at the point of low demand the following day. I, too, would find it unlikely that the next FIVE flights on United from Chicago to an obscure Kentucky destination (sorry if you are from Louisville) are all sold out up to 24 hours beforehand, because among other things USA yield management systems don't work that way.

Passengers told they are being put on the "next flight", in practice means the next one with availability at a low fare bucket, to minimise any revenue loss. Meanwhile, the intervening flights are still available to new bookers at higher fares.

I think there was a bit of a clue about this when Munoz (is he still supposedly 'in charge' ?), in one of his several, rambling, contradictory pronouncements, said that among other points of detail there would be a detailed review of the way in which rebookings of denied boarding passengers were handled.

[Jet II]

I think the initial filing for discovery is in the Circuit Court of Cook County. I'm wondering if the case will eventually end up in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

I cant see United wanting this fiasco to get anywhere near a court - more likely a generous settlement with a gagging order.

[Hotel Tango]

Further to WHBM's post, there's the distinct possibility that the ground staff did not stipulate "next flight" but "next available flight". In other words, the next flight which shows available seats. Most passengers will only hear "next flight" and are not aware of the catch. This subtle difference should also be made abundantly clear when asking volunteers to give up their booked seats.

[Planemike]

I cant see United wanting this fiasco to get anywhere near a court - more likely a generous settlement with a gagging order.

Really do hope it goes to Court and the good Dr. does not agree to any "gagging order, let him speak out, if he wishes to....

[lomapaseo]

Parabellum

t has always been my understanding that captains total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.

I would like to believe that as well, hence my earlier questions back on the first two pages.

But such defining circumstances need more dissemination to all crews, passengers and barney fifes.

As one can see from reading these pages there is a real chance for anarchy out there now.

[SeenItAll]

I keep hearing people say that once a confirmed-booking passenger has entered the plane or sat down in a seat, s/he cannot be off-loaded. If you take that position, please explain to me what happens when the seat that the pax sits in is found to be defective (e.g. has a non-functioning seat belt), or due to some change in the weather (e.g., temperature or wind direction) the flight becomes over-weight? I have seen (multiple times) both of these circumstances -- and guess what? I have seen "boarded" pax have to leave the plane.

If the airline is not permitted to IDB people (assuming that even generous VDB hasn't worked), what is it to do? Ask everyone to leave the plane (guaranteeing a huge delay)? Just cancel the flight? And what, then, if someone takes exception and refuses to leave the plane? Remember, not everyone in the world is polite. Please tell us what procedures you would have the airline follow in all of these cases.

There is a reason why IDB rules like EU261 exist.

[Piper_Driver]

This case will IMHO be a game changer. If the industry fails to act to improve their policies towards passengers, the courts and the government will do it for them. I don't think United will simply be allowed to change its CoC to allow this type of off-boarding in the future. There is too much scrutiny now. If they try congress will act and revise the CFRs.

It is time for the industry to step up and do the right thing proactively. The airlines can get in front of this crisis, but they better do it quickly. The right time to act is prior to Munoz congressional testimony later this month.

[TowerDog]

. Were the deadheading crew, for which this passenger was so violently and illegally removed, were that crew United crew or Republic crew?

Republic crew, and the decison made by Republic Airlines.

[Planemike]

Please tell us what procedures you would have the airline follow in all of these cases.

Well certainly NOT what UA did with Dr Dao on Flt 3411...... Nothing but nothing justifies that, despite what a few on this forum may wish to believe. I really cannot see how anyone thinks it is acceptable to assault your customers.

In the examples you quote there is a technical reason why it may be necessary to ask a passenger to disembark and in many cases the passenger would comply, sometimes grudgingly I guess. In the case of Flt 3411 and Dr Dao the passenger was being involuntarily off loaded to suit the convenience of UA. As has been pointed out several times before, it was UAs problem and there were a number of ways they could have resolved it with out unleashing so called security personnel on a 69 year old Dr going about his lawful business.. Charter a biz jet...????

It is also possible in your examples someone from the airlines may have taken the trouble to explain to the passenger why the action was necessary. The explanation may have been accepted. As far as one can tell no one bothered to try and explain the situation to Dr Dao. They just called in the "heavy mob" and the rest is as they say is "history".

[Mr Optimistic]

There is a mess of overlapping parties. A United gate agent summoned airport security officers, who work for the city. The crew that operated the aircraft—as well as the crew members who arrived after a full plane had been boarded, resulting in United telling four passengers they had to get off the flight—worked for Republic.

"To be quite frank, Chicago employees should not be doing the dirty work for the 'friendly skies' airline," Ald. Ed Burke said at City Council hearing today.

The pilot's letter reflects their frustration after United became the subject of public outrage from the U.S. to China, as well as memes, jokes and unwanted congressional attention.

"This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel," the union said. "No United employees were involved in the physical altercation. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines."

For United, this week cannot end quickly enough.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170413/NEWS10/170419915/united-pilots-send-message-of-frustration?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

[SeenItAll]

Well certainly NOT what UA did with Dr Dao on Flt 1344...... Nothing but nothing justifies that despite what a few on the forum may wish to believe.

Well, that was a helpful contribution. I don't think anyone thinks that the way things were handled was the best of all alternatives. What I want to know is what should be the appropriate procedures.

[SMT Member]

This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines."

Took a couple of days, and it didn't come from the airline but rather the union. To the traveling public it doesn't matter: The probably bought their ticket from a site called 'united.com'; it says 'United' on the ticket; they checked in at a 'United' counter in a 'United' terminal staffed by people in 'United' uniforms; the aircraft livery proudly displays the 'United' name.

But as soon as the smelly stuff hits the spinning bits, it's suddenly nothing to do with United. Pardon me whilst I have a puke!

[WingNut60]

Further to WHBM's post, there's the distinct possibility that the ground staff did not stipulate "next flight" but "next available flight". In other words, the next flight which shows available seats. Most passengers will only hear "next flight" and are not aware of the catch. This subtle difference should also be made abundantly clear when asking volunteers to give up their booked seats.

I'm just second guessing, of course, but I suspect that the doctor's initial acceptance and subsequent rejection of the offer(s) made revolves around this point. And I agree completely that full and frank disclosure of those conditions needs to be prioritised when explaining any such offer to the "bumpee".

Most passengers will only hear "next flight" ? Maybe.
Or maybe that's exactly what they offered, initially.
Maybe they only explained the full implications (flight next day) when further queried by the good Dr.
That's an equally distinct possibility and is just the sort of sequence that would stimulate my ire.
Might even make me recalcitrant or, worse still, belligerent.

Whichever way it was explained, and that detail is not terribly important, it seems evident that the doctor would probably have been ready to accept "next flight" but to not accept "next available flight" if that was going to mean "late the next day".

[slats11]

@ newfoundglory
The (aviation) lawyer talking on the live broadcast, if you didn't see, did make a clear firm statement about how the captain was the one in charge.


Maybe he got that idea from reading some of the comments here! Since the PIC was joined in this action, there seem to have been notably fewer posts about "I am in charge" and "Nothing happens without my consent."


@ BusAirDriver
Also unfortunately there are sometimes overzealous ground agents and cabin crew, who feel extremely empowered with their position.

Yep. There is a pervasive attitude of "We treat you this way because we can, and you can't do anything about it." There is a substantial power imbalance in the airline / airport industry, and a few employees seem to take maximum advantage of this. Every frequent pax has experienced this. Every journalist has. And that is a problem for a defendant trying to find a sympathetic jury.


@ MrOptimistic
The people are available to ask, should it be deemed relevant and in any conversation there are at least two witnesses. I could understand the industry feelings against the relevance of the CVR.

The problem is that people's recollections are sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. Lots of reasons why memories are not infallible - there may be a long delay before you are asked what happened, and stress or fear make for imperfect memory formation.

Final one, chosen by algorithm, pushes back. Argues, won't budge. So CC walk back annoyed that their rightful request has been ignored.Think how can I make this guy realise I am within my rights and he must stand, walk and go. OK, I'll find someone in uniform with 'security' on their vest to make the point. That will convince him. Never think the security guys anticipate they will only be called upon when muscle power is needed and with that mindset they board the aircraft. Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.

Very possible it unfolded along these lines.
Very likely airlines are now giving their CC some memos and information sessions about "rightful requests" and "lawful directions."


@SalNichols
The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here

It is very odd that an industry has such contempt for its customers. No other industry would survive with this attitude. Maybe it is an unintended consequence of all the security measures and constantly seeing every pax as a potential threat. Maybe that is part of the explanation. Happened in Vietnam - VC hid out among civilian population and some soldiers started seeing all civilians as potential enemy combatants.


@PaxBritannica
As someone who married into a family of aviation professionals, I'm not so surprised at the attitudes of some posters here. Aviation is a peculiar industry in that it can only provide a safe service if its employees adhere absolutely to rules and SOPs, and obey others without question. However, the industry exists for the sole purpose of servicing human beings who are NOT trained in that strict obedience. Moreover, airlines are hugely keen to sell themselves on the basis of providing a comfortable and effortless service - the last thing they want is pax feeling intimidated by quasi-military authoritarianism. I can see why those who must conform to strict rules and discipline resent those who don't - but the resentment is unfair and irrational. Airlines can't exist without passengers, and passengers are simply people paying money to get from one place to another, not volunteers enlisting in the marines.

An interesting observation.


@rob_ginger
I went to Hawaii with my wife for a holiday in the early 1980's, and I was shocked at the aggressive attitude of the immigration officials.

I think thats a bit over the top. Every country (Aust included) has its share of over-bearing and officious security / immigration personnel. Unfortunately these PITA individuals are everywhere.
The best experience I ever had was many years ago (shortly after 9/11) at....Hawaii. Someone who absolutely did their job, but did so with flexibility and goodwill.


@SalNichols
The UA pilots union has weighed in and they place the blame on the Chicago Airport authority.

Here we go. The lawyers always love this bit when the defendants start falling out.

But who decided it was morally right to deplane pax in favour of company personnel? Who believed the request to deplane pax was a lawful directive when it probably wasn't? Who decided / authorised LEO involvement?
You can't say all the blame rests with the very last slice of cheese. Reason's model doesn't work that way. All these upstream decisions contributed.
Anyway, it will all be decided elsewhere than pprune.


@TowerDog
The Captain is not involved in the boarding process, nor responsible for how the boarding goes.

Maybe. Maybe not. That too will be decided elsewhere. A few purported PIC here have stated it is their decision and an airplane is not a democracy and they call the shots.....

[Planemike]

Well, that was a helpful contribution. I don't think anyone thinks that the way things were handled was the best of all alternatives. What I want to know is what should be the appropriate procedures.


Errrr.........fly the DH crew out to Louisville by biz jet, as but one example. Assaulting a boarded fare paying passenger just doesn't even go on the list. What I find disturbing is that the culture within an airline could even allow this train of events to commence. Surely there must have been someone there who stands up and says...... "Whoa, this is not the way to go to solve this problem". In particular I mean unleashing so called security on Dr Dau....

[portmanteau]

421dog, best not to base your misconceptions about captains on film heroes. In the real world they are expected ( and paid) NOT to display " a certain hesitation to jump headlong into a potentially sticky situation etc etc". Thats one of the reasons they are called Pilot-in-Command.

[wiggy]

fly the DH crew out to Louisville by biz jet

Not the worse idea in the world but as I think has been pointed out:

What was the avalability of a charter? Some airlines have strict rules ( possibly audit based) on which companies are acceptable for such charters? Slot pairs at both ends? Charter aircraft and crew immediately available, or available soon enough to not compromise rest before the next days duty?

I suspect in hindsight DH by road might have been a more robust solution.

[Planemike]

Yes, I accept that solution may have had to be discarded for very valid reasons, quoted it as ONE possible solution. Your suggestion of limousine travel is another. Other solutions were there but somebody had to make them work. No, easier to remove a passenger involuntarily....I don't think so!!!

[Turbine D]

I think there will be some interesting things to come out of this incident besides lawsuits. For example, the selection process for removal of a paying passenger from flight or class of service. I have always been under the impression that frequent flier reward programs were exactly that, reward frequent fliers that accumulate enough miles flown with free travel, upgrades or reduced ticket purchase prices. Apparent this idea has expanded into airline decision making via of programing a computer to decide who goes and who stays. If two people purchase tickets at the same price, why should a rewards program be a deciding factor at all in which one stays or goes? :confused:

[Photonic]

I keep hearing people say that once a confirmed-booking passenger has entered the plane or sat down in a seat, s/he cannot be off-loaded. If you take that position, please explain to me what happens when the seat that the pax sits in is found to be defective (e.g. has a non-functioning seat belt), or due to some change in the weather (e.g., temperature or wind direction) the flight becomes over-weight? I have seen (multiple times) both of these circumstances -- and guess what? I have seen "boarded" pax have to leave the plane.

If the airline is not permitted to IDB people (assuming that even generous VDB hasn't worked), what is it to do? Ask everyone to leave the plane (guaranteeing a huge delay)? Just cancel the flight? And what, then, if someone takes exception and refuses to leave the plane? Remember, not everyone in the world is polite. Please tell us what procedures you would have the airline follow in all of these cases.

It's simple. In a safety-related issue like this (which was NOT the case with Dr. Dao), you offer apologies, sufficient compensation, and every effort to get that displaced pax where they need to go in a reasonable timeframe. Something like this:

"We're very sorry, but your seat is broken and we didn't spot it before boarding. It would be unsafe for you to fly in that seat. Here's $300 cash in partial compensation, a hotel room if necessary, and we will make every effort to get you to your destination ASAP, even if it means buying you a ticket on another carrier."

Increase the offer if it means the pax was traveling with spouse and kids, if they don't want to fly separately. In a clear safety-related incident like that, with sufficient compensation, I think the number of pax you'd have trouble with would be extremely low.

[WingNut60]

I keep hearing people say that once a confirmed-booking passenger has entered the plane or sat down in a seat, s/he cannot be off-loaded. If you take that position, please explain ...........
AND
There is a reason why IDB rules like EU261 exist.

In fact, what you keep hearing is people say that once a confirmed-booking passenger has entered the plane and sat down in a seat, s/he cannot be off-loaded WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE.
Safety and security concerns are considered to be reasonable cause, without exception.

Unloading Dr Dao was neither safety nor security related.

Certainly there is a reason why IDB rules exist. But not in order to intimidate paying passengers out of their contractual entitlements.

[Airbubba]

There is a mess of overlapping parties. A United gate agent summoned airport security officers, who work for the city. The crew that operated the aircraft—as well as the crew members who arrived after a full plane had been boarded, resulting in United telling four passengers they had to get off the flight—worked for Republic.[/url]

And several unions involved:

United pilots: ALPA (as far as I know they were not directly involved in the incident)
United customer service representatives: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Republic pilots: Teamsters
Republic flight attendants: Teamsters
Chicago Aviation Police: Service Employees International Union

The pilot's letter reflects their frustration after United became the subject of public outrage from the U.S. to China, as well as memes, jokes and unwanted congressional attention.

Here is the United ALPA MEC statement:

April 13, 2017

UAL MEC Statement Regarding United Express Flight 3411

As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.

The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.

It is important to review these baseline facts:

1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.

2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.

3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.

4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.

5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.

On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.

For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger. Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.

United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.

Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.

https://www.alpa.org/~/media/UAL/Files/eLibraries/Communications/press-release/ualmec-statement-2017-04-13.pdf

[HEMS driver]

2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation. A United (not Republic) gate employee likely started the chain of events, which included contacting the airport authority who sent the three "officers" to physically remove an already boarded passenger, in clear violation of the United CoC.

The United gate agent didn't physically touch Dr. Dao, but by initiating the chain of events was indeed involved.

[_Phoenix]

Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers..

Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think the United vs Republic debate is the airline talking out of both sides of their mouth

United (and all the other US majors) set up a system where mainline flying was outsourced to the lowest bidder. Republic is generally acknowledged as the scummiest of a rather pathetic collection of US Regional airlines.

When those regionals were beefing up the bosses bonuses by driving down pay and work conditions , they where "an Integral and Essential part of the United family " to quote from Mr Munez. So United attempts to run away from the operation they created is more than a little self serving.

And speaking of self serving the United pilots union where complicit in United management plans of throwing the regional pilots under the bus, so what goes around comes around.........

[HEMS driver]

Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.

So people should stop discussing the multiple documented incidents (hardly isolated) of bullying by UAL, because that would be bullying? :rolleyes:

[_Phoenix]

No. I wasn't clear enough, I mean in general in media, as example Jimmy advertising.

[ayroplain]

United pilots are infuriated by this event.
Is it only this (Republic) event or are they also infuriated by all the other disgraceful and humiliating events suffered by other UA mainline passengers on their watch?

[Carjockey]

Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.

Why should this incident impact on UA employees?

As I understand it we are discussing the events which led to the physical beating of a valid ticketed passenger, who committed no crime and who did not display any aggression toward anyone, but who was nevertheless physically removed from his allocated (and paid for) seat after boarding.

Any impact should be on the airline management, who through their apparent failure to provide an adequate SOP to deal with such a situation, inculcated in it's staff the belief that the actions taken were the 'right way to go'.

Nobody is blaming the company employees, this is a management issue.

Dr.Dao is going to be a rich man very soon and he deserves to be so, simply for standing up for his rights in the face of the incredibly stupid and arrogant attitudes towards paying customers which are held by corporate business.

Fair play to Dr.Dao!

[HEMS driver]

Is it only this (Republic) event or are they also infuriated by all the other disgraceful and humiliating events suffered by other UA mainline passengers on their watch?

Apparently those don't count. ;)

[aox]

United pilots are infuriated by this event.

42,500 other United passengers were turned away from their flights against their wishes in the past 5 years.

Perhaps those poor pilots will have some terrible anger management issues by now.

Is there any chance they could claim some compensation, for being forced to endure such scenes?

[HEMS driver]

42,500 other United passengers were turned away from their flights against their wishes in the past 5 years.

Perhaps those poor pilots will have some terrible anger management issues by now.

Is there any chance they could claim some compensation, for being forced to endure such scenes?

A solution is to designate the flight decks as "safe spaces." :E

[A30yoyo]

"For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger." (from United ALPA MEC release). Surely it's fortunate that the armed Chicago Police Dept WEREN'T called!
It would benefit the pilots and flight attendants if the squalid haggling over compensation for bumping were strictly done on the land side of the check-in NOT on the aircraft....more civilised perhaps if the last 5 or10% of economy seats were sold as unguaranteed standby seats to cater for connecting passengers or emergency staff movements
Now Dr Dao and his lawyer have to weigh-up compensation bids from the airline orders of magnitude bigger $10m... $100m? against going to court

[birmingham]

"For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger." (from United ALPA MEC release).


Drivel - United had no business calling law enforcement to a commercial dispute. They did and the whole world knows what happened.

You are in a monumental hole stop digging for god's sake

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.
There comes a point where a company has had its day. News of the Screws anyone?

[HEMS driver]

Drivel - United had no business calling law enforcement to a commercial dispute. They did and the whole world knows what happened.

You are in a monumental hole stop digging for god's sake

Exactly. Why did UAL (not Frontier) call security to the cabin in the first place, to deliver tea and biscuits?

ALPA should have STFU. Let Munoz take the hits.

[newfoundglory]

I dont think we should underestimate the complexities of the legal issues at play here.

I would imagine there could be several lawsuits involving the airline (who the pax likely had the contract with), the other airline operator and the city or police.

Each may want to sue the other, and thats before we get to the plaintiff who was subjected to the removal.

From watching the live steam of the lawyers, it seemed their focus was the Dr's serious injuries. Although there did seem to be interest in 'changing the industry' as a result of this incident. Its worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

[etudiant]

It seems the response by the UA unions crystallizes their complete disconnect from reality.
A UA passenger was assaulted and badly injured for the perceived convenience of UAL.
Rather than attempt to look at how this happened, they deflect: for reasons unknown to us.
This is a dangerously pathetic performance. They need to recognize that their industry has been getting away with murder and that this will probably now change.

The union would be smarter to seize this opportunity to insist that their members be allowed to apply common sense, for the good of the entire enterprise. Else they risk going down with the ship, because this system will get adjusted somehow.

[Kewbick]

"..getting away with murder.."? Hardly. Collectively, airlines barely make a profit. In the short term, nothing good ever comes from resisting force from authorities. If the doctor got up and walked off the aircraft, nothing would be heard. No harm done. His patients would have been looked after sooner or later.

In the long term, the doctor, (passenger), will benefit greatly from the lawsuit, and future passengers may benefit from legislation and/or policy changes.

[pilot9249]

No question this is a UAL management problem and Munoz finally says so.

I choose to believe that a properly empowered PIC would not elect to have an unthreatening old man separated from family and forecefully physically ejected to solve an non urgent operational problem that could be solved in numerous other ways.

[Kewbick]

"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?

If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up.

[ZFT]

"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..

Why should any law abiding passenger be fearful of bodily harm?

[CCGE29]

And to add to ZFT's point UA made over $2bn in profit last year.

[Gauges and Dials]

"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..

Somebody had to stand up for the rest of us. I'm glad he had the courage to do so. Progress is made by those who resist unjust authority, not by those who acquiesce.

[etudiant]

"..getting away with murder.."? Hardly. Collectively, airlines barely make a profit. In the short term, nothing good ever comes from resisting force from authorities. If the doctor got up and walked off the aircraft, nothing would be heard. No harm done. His patients would have been looked after sooner or later.

In the long term, the doctor, (passenger), will benefit greatly from the lawsuit, and future passengers may benefit from legislation and/or policy changes.

In an unrestrained competition, monopoly or oligopoly emerges. That is the US airline industry today.
Monopolies become abusive until they are reined in by adjustments in the law.
That is the US experience and I'd expect it to happen in this case as well if it goes to trial.
Imho, the airline industry would be well served to come up very quickly with some new rules to ensure minimally adequate treatment of their passengers. Legislated requirements can be onerous and nonsensical, hence best avoided.

Meanwhile, cudos to the doctor. He showed more courage than the entire load of passively videotaping passengers and crew.
As Franklin said, those who would abandon liberty for the promise of safety will have neither. The doctor seems to be the only one on board who took that to heart.

[cappt]

Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?

If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up.

O Please, stop with this nonsense. I would be waiting with holded breath that the gate would close out the flight and shut the damm door so I could go home and not have to fly the 0530 flight back to Chicago.
It's not like this crew just wanted to go to SDF for a good time. They were a either a pre-scheduled deadhead on reserved seats that were obviously released before they got to the gate or it was a last minute reserve crew needed to save a cancellation on the other end.
Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court.

[SeenItAll]

It's simple. In a safety-related issue like this (which was NOT the case with Dr. Dao), you offer apologies, sufficient compensation, and every effort to get that displaced pax where they need to go in a reasonable timeframe. Something like this:

"We're very sorry, but your seat is broken and we didn't spot it before boarding. It would be unsafe for you to fly in that seat. Here's $300 cash in partial compensation, a hotel room if necessary, and we will make every effort to get you to your destination ASAP, even if it means buying you a ticket on another carrier."

Increase the offer if it means the pax was traveling with spouse and kids, if they don't want to fly separately. In a clear safety-related incident like that, with sufficient compensation, I think the number of pax you'd have trouble with would be extremely low.

So let me get this right. It's not OK to beat the s___ out of pax for a nonsafety-related reason, but if s/he fails to get off the plane for a safety-related reason (even one that is not immediate), you can use force? And for an important safety-related reason, you still need to offer unlimited amounts of money -- rather than just saying "get off and we'll give you IDB?

[Carjockey]

Originally Posted by Kewbick http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-50.html#post9740451)
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..

At 69 years old most people would rightly expect to be treated with a degree of respect not afforded to younger people. At 69, you would most certainly not expect some brute to grab you, break your nose and drag you from the airline seat which you had legitimately purchased.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
I don't know what world you live in, but on my planet the prospect of bodily harm resulting from a commercial dispute would never have dreamt of occurring to me.


Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court.
It really is completely beyond my comprehension that some people don't seem to be able to get their heads round this very simple and completely correct analysis.

[andytug]

I don't know what world you live in, but on my planet the prospect of bodily harm resulting from a commercial dispute would never have dreamt of occurring to me.


Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe.

This is the thing, and agreements like TTIP are the same - the rights of the corporation over the rights of the individual. Very worrying.

[etudiant]

It really is completely beyond my comprehension that some people don't seem to be able to get their heads round this very simple and completely correct analysis.

Agree entirely that this debacle is a management failure first and foremost.
That said, such failures are much more likely when there are overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions, as was the case here. United ticket, Republic airplane and crew, who is really in charge?
Clearly management was abrogated to the Airport Security, with predictable results.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The doctor was warned
How do you know that? - is there a recording of him being told "if you don't get up we will smash your face into the armrest and give you concussion and a broken nose and two lost teeth"? - if you know about this recording how come nobody else does?

[Piper_Driver]

I am appalled that some people on this thread are arguing about what "boarded" means. Many are stating that a passenger is not boarded until the door is closed. This boggles the mind. If that were the case why would there be separate clauses in the CoC for reasons that a passenger can be offloaded once seated than those for denied boarding.

If I were trying to defend United in this case I wouldn't try that line of reasoning in front of a jury. Unless you re-define the term "boarded" within the document the term boarded will be interpreted by the public, the legal system and anyone without an agenda to mean what it implies. It's like saying "that depends what your definition of is is".

I am sure that if an airline defense attorney tried that in a trial he would be shredded by the plaintiff's attorney. Parsing words like this will only inflame a jury and lead to a higher punitive damage award. When reading the ToC it needs to be interpreted as a layperson would interpret it.

[parabellum]

Lockerbie took down Pan Am.

True, but it was the final straw, sadly Pan Am were in serious trouble before Lockerbie, think it came to the surface when they sold off all their hotels, not certain about that though.

[etudiant]

It appears the bad publicity continues.


United Airlines passenger 'stung by scorpion' on flight - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39599999)

United face an uphill battle. When you google United Airlines this story comes up top of the page.
United Airlines passenger ordeal 'worse than fall of Saigon' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39586391)
Nice PR for the stockmarket.

Lockerbie took down Pan Am.

It is astonishing that the UA management is so oblivious to the above facts.
The most elementary PR would be to displace the bad news with some coherent positive response, something that will shift the debate from UA's failure.
Thus far, it is crickets, apart from a meaningless and belated apology, a promise to do better with no specifics and a reversal of the ticket charges for the people on that flight. That does not address the larger issue.
UA is a leader among US airlines and this is their opportunity to lead, to offer a meaningful passenger bill of rights that would address the awful way passengers are currently treated in the US. That is in their own and the entire industries interest. If they wait till the Senate and the DoT act, they and Wall Street may not like the results so much.

[albatross]

Who called the "Law enforcement officers"?
People supposedly, apparently, in the eyes of the passengers, working for UA, irrespective of whom they were actually working for.
UA tickets, UA flight number, UA uniforms, UA logo on the aircraft. "Perception is reality" unfortunately for a lot of juries.
"Asking" the "officers" to remove the passenger and departing the scene does not obsolve them of responsibility.
Also were these "Officers" aware of their jurisdiction and powers? Had they been properly trained in such actions. It would appear not.
A terrible mess. One that could lead to changes in law.
I foresee a bunch of lawyers making big $$$$$$.
High end car dealerships and real estate folks in both Chicago and Washington must be thrilled!

[Count of Monte Bisto]

I am a Brit and not an American, but am a massive fan of your great nation. However, I cannot help but notice one extremely disturbing aspect of American life - wildly out of control law enforcement agencies in all their many forms. What passes for normality in American life among security, immigration, police, sheriffs, constables, DEA officials etc is just mind blowing to people outside the USA. Americans have a deep love for law enforcement, which is fine, but it seems to make them oblivious to the crazy excesses of the various agents who work within the system. They are often staggeringly rude, ill-mannered and objectionable people who feel empowered to do almost anthing they want whilst on duty. The conclusion I have come to is that their training is fundamentally flawed and they are rarely held accountable for their appalling lack of skill in dealing with difficult people situations. I have observed it so often in the countless embarrassing, and frankly shameful, PR disasters that regularly beset US law enforcement that I can come to no other conclusion. It seems to me that this awful incident with United Airlines is yet another example of over-zealous and under-trained security staff who acted like Nazi thugs, and yet somehow believed their behavior was 'reasonable'. I cannot say this could never happen in Europe but I can say it is infinitely less likely due to the enormous constraints put on police and security staff actions compared to the US. Hopefully they will lose their jobs, but I am intrigued that Munos initially tried to justify this, thus showing an astonishing deference to law enforcement and seemingly accepting of their excesses. Somehow he felt an aggravated assault on a 69 year-old doctor was an appropriate response because he was being difficult. The guy himself will make a fortune but it does not deal with the unqualified support so often given to law enforcement by the American middle classes. It is a remarkable, yet very dangerous, phenomenon that seems peculiarly American.

[Basil]

I wasn't going to post again but I can scarcely believe the quantity and low quality of ill informed comment.
Someone asked me what I would have done if I had been the captain.
My reply: Bas: (To despatcher) "Let me know when YOUR problem is resolved."

[robdean]

I am not defending United Airlines. The doctor was warned, and then at the point of being dragged, he could have submitted, and walked off the aircraft. He made a decision. Being dragged, in my opinion, is choosing to make a statement. Regardless of his verbal protestations, I think he thought to himself "just how far will these idiots take this?"

Just like Rosa Parks. He made a decision. He will be thought of highly by the travelling public.

He made a decision. What world do you live in? Would you have walked after being warned, or would you sit and choose to be dragged. Just saying..


He made a decision. And he won. With bruises. Personally, I would have walked off the aircraft. I am not that stubborn to risk bodily harm. I do not want to be a martyr. If a police office asks me to get out of my car, I will not say "What the f**k for?" I will get out of my car. That is the kind of world I live in.

You do not know how things played out on the aircraft. Maybe he had no explicit warning, maybe no indication at all that he was about to be physically (and violently) siezed. Moreover, a broken nose, missing teeth and concussion is more than a passenger could reasonably expect even from being physically restrained and removed: I'm sure he did not 'choose' that option.

This passenger had no need to ask why he was being told to leave: he knew he had been arbitrarily selected, through no fault of his own, to be thrown off the flight for reasons of commercial convenience. That's not the same as being stopped by a police patrol.

What the airline and several here on pprune seem not to appreciate is that it is the dismissing, minimising and rationalising of this event that has vastly magnified it. People are shocked that it happened, but are outraged by attempts to justify or mitigate it. If you value 'the rules' and see this event as falling within those rules, or as 'reasonable' given the passenger's conduct, then tread carefully or you'll see those rules promptly torn up by legislation: the view of society will now be that anything that makes this event 'right' is wrong and must not stand unchanged.