USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

[Basil]

If the aircraft's captain, apparently with total authority on board, had told the police to stop what they were doing, would they have obeyed him or arrested him or beaten him up?
On the ground, with doors open, the police are running the show.
That's in the UK - clearly this was in the USA.

[newfoundglory]

Everyone on the flight was offered a cash refund which is rather extraordinary, don't you think?

(And its probably not for the reason you are thinking......)

[Hotel Tango]

@ Piltdown Man

I understand your concerns. Now look at it from the passenger side. I would suggest that it's fairly reasonable for a passenger to consider that after they have purchased their ticket, complied with all the rules and requirements, been accepted without condition at the gate and taken their allocated (and booked) seat, the last thing they might expect is to be bumped off AT THIS STAGE of the process. Even more so if they are going to be split from the rest of their family. The bottom line here, which many seem to have forgotten, is that the airline made some sort of monumental cock-up regarding the DH crew and they expected 4 boarded passengers to give up their seats, without even the guarantee of a seat on the very next flight. That's just not right, period.

[DaveReidUK]

What makes me feel uneasy is that some here have the opinion that that as soon as a passenger's bum hits their seat they are protected by some omnipotent legal shield. The passenger can now call the shots. Does that mean that unless my company come up with a sufficiently high enough level of compensation for them to vacate their seat they have a legal right to remain seated, no matter what? Do they have to travel on the aircraft they boarded, in that seat to the prescribed destination, no matter what?

No, not "no matter what".

But if the passenger hasn't breached the Conditions of Carriage that they (and your employer) have agreed to, and they are already sat in a serviceable seat on a flight that's going to their intended destination, then yes, you can only buy them out of their contract by offering them what they consider to be an acceptable sum.

From this point on, you're going to have to get used to that idea.

[Planemike]

Just to be clear, I have no interest in disembarking any passenger on a random whim. PM

But that is just what happened. Not chosen by the captain, to be sure, but randomly chosen nonetheless. Yes, the passenger/customer does have the right to expect the occupy the seat. He had bought (paid for) a ticket, passed through all the necessary formalities and was behaving as civilised member of the human race.

The problem arose because four members crew (working for the airline) turned up at the 11th hour and 59th minute. The airline decide they had to fly so others should be off loaded. Bribery worked on three but not on the four person, Dr Dao. Airline solution, call "security" and have him forcibly removed. Not an acceptable solution for Dr Dao or one suspects many other millions of the travelling public.


PS. PM Seems there are three in a row here who are thinking along the same lines...!! As I said, in reality it runs into millions... In essence I suppose you could ask the question: Are the airlines run for the convenience of airlines or for the convenience of passengers..?

[Piltdown Man]

Jay, you are correct. But the contract exists from you buying the ticket until the contract is fulfilled with you arriving at your destination, providing numerous compliance check-points are met along the way. But flying also requires the weather and airports to play ball. At the same time airlines have become used to using their aircraft as internal transport. Are they wrong to do this? Should airlines keep seats free for position crew? Every airline adverse option means the poster is perfectly happy for you to pay more to fly. Is that OK?

[Mike Flynn]

No, not "no matter what".

But if the passenger hasn't breached the Conditions of Carriage that they (and your employer) have agreed to, and they are already sat in a serviceable seat on a flight that's going to their intended destination, then yes, you can only buy them out of their contract by offering them what they consider to be an acceptable sum.

From this point on, you're going to have to get used to that idea.

Well I am sure this will all look good on United Airlines next sale pitch.

Dragged of your flight with a bloody nose....That's United :ok:

[Count of Monte Bisto]

Piltdown Man - your post reveals exactly what I have said. Somehow the actions of law enforcement seem irrelevant to you here. I would strongly suggest that they are at the root of the problem. That is not to say that Dr Dao was completely reasonable. What we all have to recognize is that if you have a flight with 150 assorted passengers on board, some will be trickier to handle than others. Given that we are all likely to be faced with some difficult and less compliant passengers, the default action by law enforcement cannot be to carry out violent attacks on such people, simply because they can. This is all about training - there is no achievement in handling nice people who, when told to jump reply, 'How high'? The skill is dealing with perfectly law-abiding but idiosyncratic people who think they have rights or absolutely reject the idea of being booted from a flight to accommodate staff. The future costs of travel are nothing to do with Dr Dao - they are all to do with inadequately trained and selected security staff who are totally ill-equipped to perform their basic duties due to an astonishing lack of common sense and temperamental inadequacies.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

PM, I fully understand and appreciate what you say. In fact you use the phrase "on a whim" which seems to apply to this case as there were many other options available that were either not considered, or considered and discounted. The path of least resistance would have appeared to be to remove the passenger who had already expressed a willingness to do so in the belief that a later flight was on offer; once it was clear this meant a flight the next day the circumstances for him changed and he rejected that offer.

Anyone who buys a ticket for an airline flight, has a boarding pass and is seated in a perfectly serviceable seat and doing no harm to anyone certainly has the right not to be assaulted; and subsequently humiliated and denigrated.

Unforeseen circumstances can occur and will continue to do so. These must be addressed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the safe conduct of the flight, and/ or the safety of the passenger(s). As you say, you have bought yourself out of those situations in the past; sadly in this instance UA closed the wallet too soon and it will cost them dearly. I am sure that for a few hundred dollars more someone else on that plane would have voluntarily relinquished their seat.

[b1lanc]

Spreading to other airlines now.

Internal Error (http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/14/man-files-lawsuit-against-american-airlines-alleges-was-discriminated-against.html)

[parabellum]

A few purported PIC here have stated it is their decision and an airplane is not a democracy and they call the shots..... and a few purported PIC are quite wrong when discussing this particular, (or similar) situation(s), involving an airline, rather than a third level operator with 20seat aircraft at remote out stations. There are multi layers of airline traffic management, (ground staff), between the person who approached the doctor to ask him to leave and the most senior traffic services manager in the airline. At no stage do the lines of traffic management authority cross with those of the PIC when it comes down to a passenger seating dispute and the traffic staff would have valid grounds for complaint if a PIC tried to intervene. There would have been several more senior staff available that night who could have become involved, right up to and including the UAL Duty Station Manager, Chicago, if necessary.

To those posters using this thread to denigrate the pilot work force; PPRuNe is a professional pilots forum, please leave the chips on your shoulders at the door, before entering.
To those taking exception to the term Self Loading Freight (SLF); An understanding of aviation humour would probably be enough to stop you rushing into print.

[slats11]

Surely this isn't as difficult to understand as some people are trying to make out.

If there is a genuine safety reason (broken seat, last minute need to add fuel for changing Wx and now above MTOW or whatever), the PIC has legitimate authority to request a pax to get off). 99% of pax will get that. Hopefully the carrier will compensate the pax for something which is really no ones fault but rather circumstances beyond everyone's control. Next possible flight, lounge access, upgrade .....whatever. Isn't that what most of us would expect if we drew the short straw for the greater good? This safety reason separates airlines from other businesses like restaurants or cinemas or whatever.

LEO have dragged pax off for legitimate reason - intoxicated or whatever. And the other pax support that and won't come to the defence of the clown. The fact the video shows outraged pax (some of whom allegedly subsequently refused to reboard) should be a hint that this was not right.

Could a hotel or cinema or restaurant demand someone vacate so an employee could take their place? Of course not - it's not safety related. So why should an airline?

The fact some people still don't seem to get this is the centre of the pupil of the bullseye of the failed customer service culture that so many pax have experienced.

[Planemike]

slats11 You sum it up very well.

[Piltdown Man]

DavidReid - I have always respected your opinion. I seldom disagree with you and I'm not going to now. As I said in my last post above, this is not a problem for me, only my company. I also know who pays my salary (and soon my pension).

But I find it interesting that contract law appears to trump any aviation law. Once the victims park their bums they appear to be invulnerable. So being a bit naughty, what is a passenger's status after passing the gate, before getting on board? Clarity is essential as I fly 50,000 people every year and I'd like to know what is legal and what is not.

[Matt48]

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.
If the craft becomes ' overweight' because of an unseen weather change, or similar circumstances, if the required volunteers are not forthcoming, the captain could announce that this flight can't legally leave the stand and will have to be fully deboarded where either a larger plane will be found or the passengers reboarded in the order in which they checked in, minus the last x number of passengers, so no dramas, no tears, no bashings, simples.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

But I find it interesting that contract law appears to trump any aviation law.

I don't think it does here, or should ever do so. Mr Dao did nothing wrong to contravene aviation law.

Personally I hope he sues UA for millions and enjoys his accelerated retirement. I also hope this is a long over-due wake-up call to an industry that hides behind "it is because of security" whenever it is called to account.

[etudiant]

ABC reports Delta has a upped the maximum for a denied seat to $9950.
Delta OKs offers of up to $9,950 to flyers who give up seats - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/delta-oks-offers-9950-flyers-give-seats-46803441)

Stupid move imho, it simply sets off a bidding war among the carriers.
Given the upcoming Senate interest, it would have been much better to work out an industry wide compensation agreement. That would have allowed the industry as a whole to point to a proactive response.
Absent that, I think they are all in the soup, because any inquiry into industry procedures will raise lots of questions.

[slats11]

To those posters using this thread to denigrate the pilot work force; PPRuNe is a professional pilots forum, please leave the chips on your shoulders at the door

Pilots enjoy very high levels of public support and esteem. In my personal view, rightly so.

If the public has a beef with airlines, it really isn't to do with the pilots.

Responsibility is rarely a completely black and white issue with a sharp dividing line between zero responsibility and 100% responsibility. The court will decide this. But I expect the majority of the lay public you serve would likely believe the PIC has at least some responsibility for lots of things whenever s/he is onboard. It may be dangerous to think of a problem as "your problem."

Unfortunately the IC part of PIC means pilots risk getting caught up in something they have little direct involvement in. Best way to manage this risk is to be aware and be involved. Otherwise you are potentially at risk by the person who is thinking least.

[JerseySean]

Stupid move imho, it simply sets off a bidding war among the carriers.
Given the upcoming Senate interest, it would have been much better to work out an industry wide compensation agreement. That would have allowed the industry as a whole to point to a proactive response.
Absent that, I think they are all in the soup, because any inquiry into industry procedures will raise lots of questions.

Or the 'industry' could start putting customers first and avoid cartel-esq behaviour. Prices and compensation are on the same coin but different sides.

[Matt48]

Bottom line is that it's United's aircraft. It would have been far better to deny boarding in the first place than to deboard a passenger, but the incident was escalated by the passenger refusing to leave the aircraft once told that he would not be accommodated on that flight.


I think it will set a terrible precedent if this passenger is rewarded for his behavior. The lesson learned will be that defiance of flight and ground crew and abusive behavior will get you want you want.
Court proceedings will determine if the passenger 'defied' a legal and ethical request or not, and if he is in the right, I hope he IS rewarded for his 'defiance', the carrier really stuffed up the management of this situation by not handling this at the gate, and after a polite approach to pax to voluntarily deboard, the next reasonable step should have been to find alternative means to transport the stby crew.

[9 lives]

ABC reports Delta has a upped the maximum for a denied seat to $9950.
Delta OKs offers of up to $9,950 to flyers who give up seats - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/delta-oks-offers-9950-flyers-give-seats-46803441)

Stupid move imho, it simply sets off a bidding war among the carriers. .........
Sounds like a fast track to chapter 11.

Not such a risk for the airline if they stop creating situations which could cause the need to compensate passengers! This will be a good motivator for the staff to get the seating right the first time!

[Matt48]

DavidReid - I have always respected your opinion. I seldom disagree with you and I'm not going to now. As I said in my last post above, this is not a problem for me, only my company. I also know who pays my salary (and soon my pension).

But I find it interesting that contract law appears to trump any aviation law. Once the victims park their bums they appear to be invulnerable. So being a bit naughty, what is a passenger's status after passing the gate, before getting on board? Clarity is essential as I fly 50,000 people every year and I'd like to know what is legal and what is not.
PM, Your last sentence has me astounded, you are a PIC and you are asking on here what are the legal ramifications.:ugh:

[ZFT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-52.html#post9740669)
DavidReid - I have always respected your opinion. I seldom disagree with you and I'm not going to now. As I said in my last post above, this is not a problem for me, only my company. I also know who pays my salary (and soon my pension).

But I find it interesting that contract law appears to trump any aviation law. Once the victims park their bums they appear to be invulnerable. So being a bit naughty, what is a passenger's status after passing the gate, before getting on board? Clarity is essential as I fly 50,000 people every year and I'd like to know what is legal and what is not.

Posted by Matt48

PM, Your last sentence has me astounded, you are a PIC and you are asking on here what are the legal ramifications.:ugh:Why so? Operating crew are not lawyers and the query is about pax not even on board!!.

[etudiant]

DavidReid - I have always respected your opinion. I seldom disagree with you and I'm not going to now. As I said in my last post above, this is not a problem for me, only my company. I also know who pays my salary (and soon my pension).

But I find it interesting that contract law appears to trump any aviation law. Once the victims park their bums they appear to be invulnerable. So being a bit naughty, what is a passenger's status after passing the gate, before getting on board? Clarity is essential as I fly 50,000 people every year and I'd like to know what is legal and what is not.

That is an interesting question, because there are lots of incidents of passengers getting removed from a plane for no particular reason. Maybe they were working on an abstruse math paper or they were taking pictures of the IFE screen or they were speaking some foreign language.
Thus far, there has been no protest against such actions, arguably high handed and illegal under normal commercial contracts.
That will surely come under scrutiny and may not be permitted to continue. Certainly one might argue that if someone has gone through security, they should be acceptable to the airline.

[etudiant]

Some more blog legal discussion from an alleged 'aviation attorney':



https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

The legal discussion given in the article is not very convincing.
The author may have contributed it in part as a personal advertisement. If so, he was ill advised imho.

[TWT]

Airbubba,the author of that blog that you posted states that the flight was overbooked.

According to what I've read ,that isn't the case. There's a lot of conflicting 'legal opinions' floating around at the moment,so it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out in a real courtroom with appropriately qualified legal practitioners. I get the feeling that the Doctor doesn't want an out of court settlement.

[DON T]

400kgs of luggage doesn't equal four seats for crew.

[DaveReidUK]

There's a lot of conflicting 'legal opinions' floating around at the moment, so it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out in a real courtroom with appropriately qualified legal practitioners. I get the feeling that the Doctor doesn't want an out of court settlement.

That's a good summing up.

It's reasonable and predictable that there is disagreement among the legal community about the relative weights of Conditions of Carriage, on one hand, and the absolute right (if it exists) of a company to kick an individual off its property (made more complicated by the fact that the crew of an aircraft have wide-ranging powers).

That disagreement is only going to be resolved in a courtroom, and it's probably in United's interest - though not necessarily that of the travelling public - that it never get that far.

I expect the following outcomes:

a) Dr Dao will reluctantly forego his day in court, on the advice of his lawyers, but will become a very rich man
b) the legal situation will remain as muddy as before
c) the industry will pay lip service to the lessons learned, but until those at the top wake up to the fact that they are running a customer-focused business, nothing will really change

[p.j.m]

a) Dr Dao will reluctantly forego his day in court, on the advice of his lawyers, but will become a very rich man

Going on his actions on the aircraft, I don't think he's going to let this go. He knows his rights, and he has the law (not to mention the public and the media) on his side.

UA have already lost a billion dollars in value, which before the days of social media and video phones, would have all been swept under the carpet, with a barrage of PR reps, and the Dr would have been discredited as a rowdy and disruptive passenger who disobeyed legal directives from the police, despite their gentle and meek demeanour escorting him from his seat.

Bad luck for UA that isn't going to wash with all the actual evidence that is available today. UA are going down for this.

[parabellum]

Originally Posted by twb3 http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-post9735163.html#post9735163)
Bottom line is that it's United's aircraft. It would have been far better to deny boarding in the first place than to deboard a passenger, but the incident was escalated by the passenger refusing to leave the aircraft once told that he would not be accommodated on that flight.


I think it will set a terrible precedent if this passenger is rewarded for his behavior. The lesson learned will be that defiance of flight and ground crew and abusive behavior will get you want you want.


twb3 - I think you must have strayed onto the wrong thread, what happened in Chicago was totally wrong, should never have happened and entirely down to gross mishandling by the local traffic staff, there is no evidence of abusive behaviour by the passenger in question, either.

[slats11]

You know the CVR (if still available - which it likely isn't) could help a PIC.

Purely hypothetical, but if a PIC ever authorised (or went along with) deplaning a pax, but only after a intercom conversation that said pax was aggressive and threatening and a danger..... a PIC could be very grateful for this CVR evidence. May not get you totally off the hook, but would at least demonstrate you had been given inaccurate information.

LEO carry recorders and most of the time it helps them. Of course if it records improper conduct then LEO is screwed. But most of the time this evidence protects.

[autoflight]

Dave, What you say seems on the money, but we cannot forget that this whole incident is about money and this will affect your item (c)

To recover their lost customers, UA will need to establish and publish a more client friendly bumping procedure. Otherwise they could be known for years as the "drag on, drag off" airline!

In court the ramping up of crew authority would possibly establish an increased level during pushback, more during taxiing and full authority at some point during the take-off roll. Original legislation might not have considered what a court might. Prior to crew boarding, as an example of the complexity, captain authority includes refusal to operate if aircraft is unserviceable, his fuel decision not met etc. In practice he simply makes his requirements known and his ultimate authority to refuse the flight forces company to treat his requests with a similar authority as would his crew and pax during flight.

[parabellum]

The legal discussion given in the article is not very convincing.

Have to agree, as soon as the second paragraph he seems to go off the rails.

[ZFT]

That's a good summing up.

It's reasonable and predictable that there is disagreement among the legal community about the relative weights of Conditions of Carriage, on one hand, and the absolute right (if it exists) of a company to kick an individual off its property (made more complicated by the fact that the crew of an aircraft have wide-ranging powers).

That disagreement is only going to be resolved in a courtroom, and it's probably in United's interest - though not necessarily that of the travelling public - that it never get that far.

I expect the following outcomes:

a) Dr Dao will reluctantly forego his day in court, on the advice of his lawyers, but will become a very rich man
b) the legal situation will remain as muddy as before
c) the industry will pay lip service to the lessons learned, but until those at the top wake up to the fact that they are running a customer-focused business, nothing will really change

Dave,

You may well be correct but, do you not think that the awareness of pax rights has been highlighted by this so much that maybe the industry will now want this resolved?

Of course costs will be borne by the consumer but I would suggest this is a small price to pay for (hopefully) an improvement in the typical abysmal service that most US and EU so called full service carriers have lowered themselves to.

[Mr Optimistic]

There is also the matter of criminal proceedings. A potential crime was commited on Republics (?) Property so all involved are standing ready to assist the authorities one hopes. If charges are raised, this would be more defining for the industry in terms of clarification of authority than civil negotiations.

[pax2908]

It is probably in the public _and_ airlines interest (in the long term) that this discussion goes to court.
Hopefully there will also be discussed some of the imposed commercial practices that favour this situation, and which can create an unsafe environment.

I do appreciate that, for instance, had the Captain intervened to prevent this outcome (one way or the other) he/she may then be given some hard time afterwards (e.g. had he refused to transport his colleagues).
Also clearly the gate agent had a problem to try to solve (either due to his mistake or someone else's) in a short time; even in a confrontation I cannot think they want to get to a point when someone is getting hurt! I hope (s)he also gets all the support (s)he may need.

[RAT 5]

I would suggest the local buck stops at the station manager; nothing to do with the captain. The orders to the S.M. would have come from 'mission control'. The SM was "only obeying orders, m'lud". My question would be who authorised/coordinated the use of 'unnecessary force'. Was that a decision made on the spot by the bouncers? If UAL had said "create seats at all costs," then that is the fault. If the bouncers went beyond their remit, and should have backed off, then that is their fault. Someone has to discover who made the decisions to man-handle the pax in such an extreme manner.

[Old Carthusian]

United will not want this case to go to court. It is already an A1 PR disaster and with the evidence available a good attorney will make mincemeat of any defence. The defendants are themselves divided; perfect cannon fodder for the plantiffs. Dr Dao happens to have hired a very good litigation firm. Expect a very generous offer unless United are really stupid.

[Piltdown Man]

Matt48 - I asked the question because the passengers were NOT on board. Onboard I'm pretty clear about what I can and can not do, I was asking about the transit area between gate and aircraft door.

And Rat 5, I think you are spot on.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

or rather than offload 4x 90kg pax you remove 400kg of hold luggage that won't argue back.
The traditional way of dealing with the problem on charter flights home from the Med on hot days.

[portmanteau]

Don T, quite right. for the uninitiated, if you took off 1000kg of baggage or indeed any amount, you still cannot carry four extra pax because THERE ARE NO SEATS for them.

Which airline employee in his/her right mind thinks it's ok to offload a pax without considering how this affects his wife? Oh she will get off with him.......that gives us a spare seat...

[DuncanF]

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 ....
There is a good reason that the "Police Forces" in the UK were re-christened "Police Services" some years ago. The moniker "Law Enforcement Officer" has a certain vibe to it which some protagonists seem to interpret over zealously.

[Ian W]

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

Every elderly non-frequent flier will now be very concerned that they may be roughed up to the point of unconsciousness on United. I suspect that there will be a significant drop in that type of traveler booking with United where they have a choice.

Indeed had Dr Dao been thrown just a little bit harder at that armrest, United could be accessories to a second degree murder charge. This cannot be let pass as 'just an incident'. Everything done after the Dr's legal refusal to deboard should not have happened. A minor issue with Ops failing to block 4 seats on a flight then the 4 non-revs turning up late led to this so both Ops and all those flying non-rev must also learn real lessons. Those sheeple SLF you disparage so easily will be voting with their wallets and avoid United wherever possible.

[Ian W]

Everyone on the flight was offered a cash refund which is rather extraordinary, don't you think?

(And its probably not for the reason you are thinking......)

Apparently, acceptance of that cash refund (the bait) requires the pax to 'hold United harmless' and not take any subsequent legal action. United are not capable of rational thought it would seem.

[SMT Member]

It's probably fair to say the good Dr. stand to receive a handsome compensation in a court, in the multiple of millions probably. United could, and probably will, try to dissuade him from taking them to court, and will thus have to come up with a sizeable offer indeed.

I have no doubt the lawyers of UA will make it clear to the beancounters of same, that offering an obscene amount of money will, in the long run, be the cheaper option.

What I'm hoping for however, is that a 69-year old doctor will be satisfied with whatever a court will award him, even if it's likely to be lower than what UA offers out of court.

In which case there's nothing UA can do, but brace itself for a round of court proceedings that's likely to cause lots of headlines all around the world, with the possibility of repercussions which may have a lasting, and positive, effect on the way airlines treat its passengers.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

400kgs of luggage doesn't equal four seats for crew.

My comment was in response to the unforeseen scenario where an upload of fuel was required.

[G-CPTN]

Spreading to other airlines now.

Internal Error (http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/14/man-files-lawsuit-against-american-airlines-alleges-was-discriminated-against.html)

$6 million for being bumped (and, allegedly, racially discriminated).

Makes Dr Dao's case look like 100's of millions . . .

[b1lanc]

Every elderly non-frequent flier will now be very concerned that they may be roughed up to the point of unconsciousness on United. I suspect that there will be a significant drop in that type of traveler booking with United where they have a choice.

Indeed had Dr Dao been thrown just a little bit harder at that armrest, United could be accessories to a second degree murder charge. This cannot be let pass as 'just an incident'. Everything done after the Dr's legal refusal to deboard should not have happened. A minor issue with Ops failing to block 4 seats on a flight then the 4 non-revs turning up late led to this so both Ops and all those flying non-rev must also learn real lessons. Those sheeple SLF you disparage so easily will be voting with their wallets and avoid United wherever possible.

One has to wonder if the teacher with the 7 students (or the 7 students along with their parents) would ever choose to fly UA again. Same for the father who took his crying 8 year old daughter off. And I don't think they were alone in feeling absolutely horrified at the treatment of a fellow passenger based on the look of other pax faces in the video. There are other airline options.

[Turbine D]

DaveReidUK,
a) Dr Dao will reluctantly forego his day in court, on the advice of his lawyers, but will become a very rich man
Don't look for anything to happen very soon regarding what Dr. Dao may do or not do. He and his lawyers have two years to decide. They will be watching what happens in the O'Hare airport security personnel situation.

As the three security personnel have been suspended resulting from their actions, the Cook County District Attorney will decide on possible criminal charges and if there is enough evidence to submit to a grand jury. The grand jury only decides based on the evidence submitted as to whether or not the case should go to trial. If it goes to a jury trial, I would think Dr. Dao's lawyers will hold off, looking for criminal convictions. This would enhance Dr. Dao's position to recover maximum damages from the city and airport management.

The same can be said for the United/Republican situation once it is unraveled as to who did what, when.

[lomapaseo]

I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.

[DaveReidUK]

Don't look for anything to happen very soon regarding what Dr. Dao may do or not do. He and his lawyers have two years to decide.

During the press conference, Dao's lawyer stated that, while they do indeed have two years in which to act, they didn't anticipate taking anything like that long to put their case together.

[newfoundglory]

There is a hearing in Chicago court on Monday, I would imagine that must be about the emergency evidence preservation request.

If you recall they have asked for pax/crew lists, CVR (although we seem to have already established this is probably not possible), the policy being used to remove pax from the aircraft, names of the "police" officers involved, as well as other things.

[9 lives]

UA will need to establish and publish a more client friendly bumping procedure.

Yup.

And the best would be that the airlines simply don't overbook. You bought the seat, whether you ride in it or not, you pay for the seat whether you ride in it or not, and the airline does not try to sell the seat twice early in the process.

If, 5 minutes before gate closure, you're not in it, and nowhere to be found running toward it, a standby passenger, who has no guarantee of getting on that flight, might get the seat that you paid for and missed.

30 years ago, that's how we did things at the airline. When the little paper sticky tab was pulled off the seat chart for that flight, that seat was assigned to a passenger who had a boarding pass in their hand - with that sticky on it! That seat could not be resold. It was simple.

[Piper_Driver]

I am not a lawyer, but I understand what can happen in consumer abuse cases because my father was in the middle of one that is somewhat analogous to this one. This was in the days prior to cell phones and social media, so the problem for United is much larger now.

My father would have played the role of poor Dr. Dao. His situation was as follows. He checked into a Hotel/Casino in Nevada for the night and was given a discount coupon for one of the restaurants. My father ate dinner and attempted to pay using the coupon which was NOT honored by the restaurant staff. The staff called security who took my father into a back room and roughed him up (injuries were no where near as severe as poor Dr. Dao's). They made him cough up the money then made him sign a statement saying they had done nothing wrong. He gladly signed it knowing it would never hold up in court because the signature was obtained under duress.

The next morning he went to an attorney who did a little discovery and found that the practice of denied vouchers was widespread. The subsequent class action lawsuit put the Casino out of business.

[galaxy flyer]

I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.

There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.

[Ian W]

It must be stressed - repeatedly - that this was not an overbooking issue. Overbooking procedures are completely irrelevant to this case.

It is a far more important issue to face. Once passengers have boarded with a valid ticket and are not a hazard (to be defined in great detail) to the safe operation of the aircraft, does the Airline have any right to eject them from the flight for their administrative convenience.

In this case to make the next day's operations more efficient, UAL decided to eject 4 peaceful boarded passengers and replace them with 4 non-rev DH crew who had not bothered to reserve seats and had not bothered to arrive before boarding commenced.

THEN

Given that the passenger who refused to deboard was completely within his rights according to UAL's conditions of carriage and FAA CFR 250 under what rule were UAL operating to call 'law enforcement' and what law gave 'law enforcement' the authority to cause grievous bodily harm (it was luck that the passenger was not killed) to a passenger who was acting within his rights?

I repeat that this is nothing to do with overbooking - that is a pivot being made to avoid the far more egregious physical assault on a passenger for UAL's administrative convenience and to recover from errors made by UAL Ops and by the DH non-revs.

If anyone is to make any rules they should be to make it absolutely and completely plain to the passengers, the gate agents and the flight crews (including the more authoritarian commenters on here who think everything was done correctly) what the law is and what the rights of a passenger are. Including right of redress that I would suggest is more than the top limit that Delta is offering when the airline decides to void its side of the contract of carriage. This should include similar amounts to pax bumped by the 'clever scheme' of faked mechanical problems then bumping them on reboarding.

If the airlines do not sort out bumping to carry non-rev DH crews, then I expect DoT or Congressional decisions that will be indeterminate and likely to be far more damaging to the airlines. As causing grievous bodily harm to a 69 year old man has removed all sympathy or empathy with the airlines. The more 'coastal' comments made on here the less sympathy there is for the airlines' case. Remember that it is UAL that was caught out now but the lack of sympathy will be across all airlines - your jobs may become far more difficult and I would suggest everyone stops digging because climbing out of this hole is going to be painful for the industry.

[Piper_Driver]

There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.


As I said earlier, the industry needs to get out in front of this predicament early. If not, congress will do it for them, and it won't be pretty. The airlines are on a short timetable for this since Mr Munoz has been "invited " to appear before a congressional committee in about a week.

[lomapaseo]

There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.

GF

But why should the passenger trust the airlines to get it right when this incident showed that lower level interpretation was against the passenger big time?

The Delta press release doesn't address this question in spite of dangling $$$$ for all to see

[galaxy flyer]

Why? If I entrust the airline with my and my family's lives to transport me somewhere; it's not too much to expect to be treated with respect and a modicum of kindness. I'm a million-miler with Brand D and a former airline pilot, so I know all too well-stuff happens. It's how they handle stuff that matters.

The other option is bring in more competition--let the ME3, NAI, the lot fly domestic and see if the US carriers survive with the present state.

[newfoundglory]

Given that the passenger who refused to deboard was completely within his rights according to UAL's conditions of carriage and FAA CFR 250 under what rule were UAL operating to call 'law enforcement'
The aviation lawyer said, on live TV, that the captain was the one in charge. That was a clear statement which was made.

While I think the chain of command on the ground at the gate is unclear, I cannot see how the answer can be anything else.

[Ian W]

The aviation lawyer said, on live TV, that the captain was the one in charge. That was a clear statement which was made.

While I think the chain of command on the ground at the gate is unclear, I cannot see how the answer can be anything else.

The captain had better have a good lawyer in that case, as (s)he could be on a criminal charge of aiding and abetting an assault while acting outside both the UAL conditions of carriage and FAA regulations. Furthermore, almost certainly, the captain will also be sued in civil court for not preventing the action as (s)he was 'in total control'. I would suspect the cost of defending the case, let alone the damages award, could be expensive. The Union better take the captain's side but may not if a criminal offence has occurred, they won't want to put themselves into the position where they will lose millions defending the indefensible.

[etudiant]

Is not the captain in an absurd position, with all the responsibility but none of the knowledge?
It seems to me that the whole idea of the captain (or the ground personnel) deciding who is to fly or not is a relic of bygone days. Airplanes today are like mid sized hotels, with service staff, while the management is locked behind the cockpit doors.
It would be more consistent with civil rights and reality to accept that once people pass security, they are qualified to be on board. If the airplane is oversold, the auction mechanism allows for the market to clear.

[newfoundglory]

The full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBduIyGsrtQ

The question about the Chicago aviation 'police' and the captain being in charge: https://youtu.be/rBduIyGsrtQ?t=1085

[newfoundglory]

The captain had better have a good lawyer in that case

Is not the captain in an absurd position, with all the responsibility but none of the knowledge?

Watch the lawyer video, it sort of implies the responsibility of the Captain and the airline are analogous.

(I have no idea whether a captain would have personal liability or not)

[etudiant]

Watch the lawyer video, it sort of implies the responsibility of the Captain and the airline are analogous.

(I have no idea whether a captain would have personal liability or not)

Is not the captain in real peril?
He works for Republic, so UA may not see him as a team member and hence not go to extremes to defend.
A passenger was seriously injured through actions he is deemed to have condoned/initiated.
He could potentially face criminal charges. Who is going to fund his defense?

[Koan]

Ralph Nader Explains Why United Airlines Has "Total Unbridled Discretion to Throw You Off a Plane" (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40233)

[Basil]

I. The captain, or Pilot in Command, is not 'in charge' of the aircraft; the captain is 'in command' of the aircraft.
2. The despatcher (or whatever the person in charge of boarding is known) is responsible for the boarding process.

[The Range]

Cows,
What if they dragged you off the restaurant because they needed your table for the restaurant owner's family and you refused to give it up.
Isn't it the same?

[galaxy flyer]

Well, UA changed their policy.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0414-united-airlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

[etudiant]

I. The captain, or Pilot in Command, is not 'in charge' of the aircraft; the captain is 'in command' of the aircraft.
2. The despatcher (or whatever the person in charge of boarding is known) is responsible for the boarding process.

Given that the captain apparently has discretion as to whether to fly with specific passengers, it is not obvious that there is no responsibility as well.
A trial would certainly clarify these responsibilities, but that may be very unpleasant for some of the individuals involved.

[etudiant]

Well, UA changed their policy.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0414-united-airlines-inflight-service-alert-doc-tmz-01.pdf

The sound of barn doors being locked after....
If this is the extent of UA's reforms, it will make it easy for the Congress to adjust the rules more fundamentally.

[galaxy flyer]

Based on not much more than experience in management, once an employee starts "working" outside his employer's remit, it can be very painful for said employee. The company cannot condone, defend or pay any penalties for those actions that are criminal or in conflict with company policies, procedures or legal obligations. I don't believe either captain is immediately in jeopardy, but if the captain directed the introduction of the police and the police are found to use excessive force, the captain might become an acessory. Lots of assumptions there.

[meadowrun]

I guess among those will be a Mr Munoz. Wonder when he last queued up to board a UAL flt...?


There was a media report (I cannot find it now) of a situation where Mr. Munoz and his wife were involved in an attempt to de-plane two F/C pax from a flight out of Aspen at Christmas so that they could travel.

[Peter H]

Basil
I. The captain, or Pilot in Command, is not 'in charge' of the aircraft; the captain is 'in command' of the aircraft.
2. The dispatcher (or whatever the person in charge of boarding is known) is responsible for the boarding process.But the issue seems to be who is in charge of any de-boarding process? Firstly in the event of a mutually agreed departure,
and secondly in the event of a stand-off.

[Airbubba]

There was a media report (I cannot find it now) of a situation where Mr. Munoz and his wife were involved in an attempt to de-plane two F/C pax from a flight out of Aspen at Christmas so that they could travel.

Here is an account of earlier UAL incidents, including the one at Aspen, from the LA Times:


This first story I’ll share isn’t such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But it’s perhaps illustrative of the corporate mindset at United, which seems to place customer satisfaction well below the interests of employees and shareholders, which isn’t very smart over the long haul.

It also involves the head of the company, Oscar Munoz. And a United spokeswoman admitted to me Wednesday that it really happened.

Steven Ginsberg — he prefers to be called “Sonny” — is a Chicago lawyer who vacationed this past Christmas in Aspen, Colo. He told me that when he and his family were flying home on United, the weather was pretty fierce. The small plane sat for nearly an hour on the runway before returning to the gate.

At that point, a family of five that had occupied most of the six first-class seats got off the aircraft. Ginsberg didn’t know it at the time, but he found out later that this was Munoz, his wife and three of his four kids.

The flight crew promptly upgraded the first-class standby passengers to the suddenly available first-class seats. Eventually, the plane left the gate again for another takeoff attempt. However, it turned around and once more returned to the gate.

United spokeswoman Megan McCarthy says this was solely due to the weather. Ginsberg, who was on the plane, isn’t so sure.

At the gate, he told me, a flight attendant announced to the five people who’d been bumped up to first class two hours earlier that they’d have to return to Economy Plus. “She said the family that had gotten off earlier had decided to get back on,” Ginsberg said.

This being Aspen, none of the people now enjoying first-class accommodations were willing to move. Ginsberg said he was told by one of the now-first-class passengers that a crew member had confided that Munoz and his family had disembarked to try and get a flight out of a different airport, the one near Vail.

When that didn’t work out, the passenger told Ginsberg, the United chief executive hurried back to the Aspen airport.

“The gate attendant repeatedly tried to shame the standby folks into vacating the first-class seats, shaking her head and making comments about how they should show respect,” Ginsberg said.

“The standby folks stood their ground. They knew it was Munoz, were bothered by them being the cause of an extra delay and did not feel they should be moved up and then back.”

McCarthy said Munoz was unaware of all this. She said that when he and his family reboarded the aircraft, he recognized the unfairness of asking people to move and, on his own, decided to take the empty seats in Economy Plus.

Ginsberg’s take is that the flight crew was “bending over backward to make the CEO happy.”

If so, it would reflect what seems to be yet another case of misplaced priorities. In the case of David Dao, the doctor who was forcibly dragged Sunday from an overbooked United flight, his seat was wanted by the airline for one of its own employees, who needed to get elsewhere for a work shift.

Then I wrote about Geoff Fearns, an Irvine investment manager who was threatened with being handcuffed if he didn’t hand over his full-fare, first-class seat on a flight from Hawaii to Los Angeles to another first-class passenger deemed a “higher priority” by United.

I’ve received many, many recollections of indignities large and small suffered by United passengers. The unifying thread to all of them is a seeming disregard on the airline’s part to how its customers are treated and whether the passengers would ever use the carrier again.

Micky Levy, for example, said she was flying from New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport last month.

“As soon as I sat down, I noticed my seat smelled like it was soaked with urine,” she recalled. “The floor was also moist. I complained to the flight attendants, who were very rude.”

After her seatmates also complained, Levy said, a United employee placed extra cushions atop the existing ones. The smell, however, remained intense.

Levy said a flight attendant refused to upgrade her to an empty seat in business class but instead responded that “I could go to the lavatories, get some water and soap, and wash my seat if I was really bothered by the unsanitary smell.”

Rita Nethersole related her experience last summer flying United from Hong Kong to her home in Massachusetts. She said she suffers from claustrophobia and can have panic attacks on long, crowded flights. So she specifically booked an aisle seat and confirmed that she still had the seat reservation 24 hours before her flight.

But when she checked in, she was given a boarding pass for a middle seat. “I questioned it and was brusquely told that my seat was changed,” Nethersole said. “I begged for a change and was still denied. I told them I was afraid I might have a panic attack but got nowhere.”

She ended spending hours standing in the galley, heavily medicated, trying desperately to keep from freaking out.

“I did everything I was supposed to and still wound up with a seat that was unacceptable,” Nethersole said. “No one attempted to help me. No one should have had to go through this.”

On the other hand, Michael Barletta told me about his experience a year ago when United was “warm, compassionate and exceptionally empathetic” after his 26-year-old daughter, Camille, a United flight attendant, died after being hit by a speeding car.

United arranged for her body to be flown to Chicago for a memorial service.

Munoz also became personally involved, arranging transportation and hotel accommodations for Camille’s former colleagues to attend the service. He called the family to convey his condolences.

That’s classy behavior.

Now what about all the rest of us who aren’t airline employees?

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

[DingerX]

It's not just closing the barn door; it's an admission it was open. This wasn't even a "reminder: this is contrary to our CoC". As "Effective immediately, Crew Scheduling is now only able" implies that they were able to do more previously, as if they had a policy of booking DH crew after boarding. It will be interesting to see if the remaining US Carriers issue similar memos.
Ian W can go on about "The Chain of Command", but it's a jet parked at the gate before the captain accepts it.

[newfoundglory]

But the issue seems to be who is in charge of any de-boarding process
But why is there going to be a lot of de boarding going on?

I am struggling to think of why this would be an issue. If checkin for the flight is closed, with no further pax being accepted for the flight, seats are allocated or denied boarding occurs. All pax have a seat assigned.

So far we have seen events such as:
1. Moving DH crews using seats already take by other pax.
2. Pax arriving late who might be deemed a 'higher priority' customer for the airline, where 'lower priority' pax have already been boarded.
3. Senior airline staff who might have an expectation to a seat, in a higher cabin class, which is already occupied by a commercial pax.

Seriously?

:sad:

[HEMS driver]

All pax are equal, but some pax are more equal than others. (Apologies to George Orwell). :E

[b1lanc]

I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.

Delta isn't trying to soothe their public. They're trying to pull disaffected UA passengers and increase their profits. Expect the others to follow shortly.

You are quite right about clarity from the government but I'm not sure the federal gov't is at all capable of clarity in anything.

[SalNichols]

But why is there going to be a lot of de boarding going on?

I am struggling to think of why this would be an issue. If checkin for the flight is closed, with no further pax being accepted for the flight, seats are allocated or denied boarding occurs. All pax have a seat assigned.

So far we have seen events such as:
1. Moving DH crews using seats already take by other pax.
2. Pax arriving late who might be deemed a 'higher priority' customer for the airline, where 'lower priority' pax have already been boarded.
3. Senior airline staff who might have an expectation to a seat, in a higher cabin class, which is already occupied by a commercial pax.

Seriously?

:sad:
I'm struggling with the concept of a full fare passenger in 1st class not being high enough priority to keep his seat. That is kind of mind boggling.

[parabellum]

Ready to be corrected but I think that a 1st Class pax travelling on a ticket issued 100% in return for airmiles may have a lower boarding priority than a pax who has paid money up front, however, when boarding commences the flight is usually officially 'closed', that can mean no more tickets accepted and turning up with a full 1st class ticket, fare paid after the flight has closed may only get you an assurance you will be firm booked on the next available flight. Staff may try to get a voluntary downgrade or offload, that will be an internal affair.

Once again, for those that still seem to be in doubt, the seating and boarding are entirely the responsibility of the ground staff, right up to the General Manager - Traffic, of the airline. The Captain, F/O and Cabin Crew are responsible for the safe operation of the flight.

It is interesting that the Doctor's lawyers are concentrating on the personal injury and humiliation aspect, a stone cold certainty and where the big money is, rather than involving themselves in boarding and seating disputes which, by comparison, pale into insignificance.

[Ranger One]

It's not just closing the barn door; it's an admission it was open. This wasn't even a "reminder: this is contrary to our CoC". As "Effective immediately, Crew Scheduling is now only able" implies that they were able to do more previously, as if they had a policy of booking DH crew after boarding.

Hammer... nail... THUMP.

It's effectively admitting there were two parallel sets of procedures - the 'public' CoC and the 'internal' policies and procedures which in some areas took little or no account of the CoC. Those two words - "effective immediately" - may just have landed UAL in a whole bunch more legal hurt; they're effectively admitting that they had policies and customary practices which made toilet paper of their CoC.

And I suspect they're far from alone in the industry in that respect; they're just the ones who got most egregiously caught.

[SMT Member]

I find it quite interesting how all those posters who said something along the lines of 'nothing happens without my approval' or 'I'm the commander, I make the calls' have gone awfully quiet recently.

If this incident does indeed reveal the PiC was, at least partially, responsible for the forceful eviction of Mr. Dao, those words may well come back to haunt them.

This incident may well result in a thorough, and much needed, clarification of how and when responsibility passes from ground to cockpit.

[Doors to Automatic]

These shocking stories make me wonder how on earth any of the Big 3 flying disgraces are still in business - they are all as bad as each other.

[newfoundglory]

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is responsible. Are airlines going to argue, in front of a county or federal court, that the captain is not completely in command when an aircraft is at the gate?

The phrase be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

Probably a moot point anyway, as this would be difficult to argue, and must already be written down somewhere in law.

How about a fire breaking out during boarding, who is responsible for ordering EVAC?
[... the gate agent, because they are performing the boarding process and the captain hasn't yet 'taken command' and doors aren't closed?]

I find it hard to believe that a gate agent would have boarded that flight and said to the pax '4 of you need to leave' without either the Captain's knowledge and/or blessing.

[framer]

This incident may well result in a thorough, and much needed, clarification of how and when responsibility passes from ground to cockpit.
Agreed.
I find it quite interesting how all those posters who said something along the lines of 'nothing happens without my approval' or 'I'm the commander, I make the calls' have gone awfully quiet recently.
I don't think I quite fit in that category but......
If I had been the captain of that flight I would right now be feeling significant responsibility for the event and be thinking of all the different actions/communications/ management techniques I could have employed that would have resulted in a different outcome.
This could easily have happened on one of my flights as I usually defer to the expertise of both senior cabin crew and ground based personnel in situations like this. In the future I will want to quickly and quietly meet with anyone boarding the aircraft to offload a passenger to gauge their attitude/ competence/ expertise etc.

[meadowrun]

And I as pax would want you to be on the flight deck checking and preparing for flight of an aircraft in an ordered, cool, calm and collected manner, having a firm reliance on ground staff to do their jobs as they properly should. Dealing with passengers before the aircraft has moved should not be added to your workload.

[RAT 5]

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is 100% responsible. Are airlines going to argue, in front of a county or federal court, that the captain is not completely in command when an aircraft is at the gate?

My first reaction to the lawyers claim is that there is some ignorance here. The doors are open, the a/c is not 'in flight' and has not yet departed. The engineers would be in charge of dispatching the a/c from a maintenance point of view; the state manager/dispatcher is responsible for ensuring the correct passengers are on board, and solving any consequential problems. The captain might become involved if there is a safety issue towards the a/c or the personnel. Neither was the case, so I fail to understand how the captain can be held responsible for a decision & chain of events that they were never at any time involved with. Even if the doors had closed and they were taxying, and the station manager ordered a 'return to gate' I suspect the captain would comply. So, IMHO, there are times when the captain is NOT 100% in charge of what happens to/with the a/c. It is his toy to do with as ordered by the company not as he would if he owned the football.

As captain I would not be best pleased if someone tried to lay this debacle at my door. The only way that could happen is if the captain intervened and instructed the bouncers to 'remove' the pax.

[pax2908]

OK RAT 5, in this case as a Captain would you have to be informed as to what's going on (e.g. if Police were coming on board after someone)? Would you become involved if you knew there is a safety issue towards some of the passengers on board the a/c?

[Piltdown Man]

We are still here framer. We are waiting for some definitive answers to some simple questions. The biggest one is when is passenger boarded? Another is if you or the "system" decides passenger X can NOT be flown, what is the status of that passenger and what is the status of the Captain of that flight immediately after that decision has been taken? Lastly, which rules apply to a passenger who has been, for want of a better word, "deplaned"? Do the airports now bylaws apply or do national laws take precidence? These are grey areas which have not been tested until now. And let's remember, we are talking about legal definitions which may not be the same as common English language usage. Once these have been answered, the rest of this debacle can be dealt with. This will determine the culpability of the Captain and the enforcement staff who ejected the Doctor. Certainly if I was one of the latter I'd want this sorted first. What do do not think us up for dispute is that UA broke their contact with this passenger.

[PDR1]

"In the interest of safety for our customers and employees, we do not accept as checked or carry-on baggage any recreational self-propelled vehicle or device designed to carry one or more persons or goods, and which moves by use of a lithium battery-powered electric motor.

In the case cited the vehicle wasn't "recreational"; it was a piece of mobility kit for a man with a spinal injury/deformation.

But again, the man took the trouble to call well in advance and check. He has every right to feel aggrieved.

I really think some of the pilots on here need to reign-in the egos a bit.

[ayroplain]

The only way that could happen is if the captain intervened and instructed the bouncers to 'remove' the pax.

Bouncers is too grand a word for the vicious and cowardly thugs that carried out this supreme act of violence on the instructions of someone employed directly or indirectly by United Airlines. Any crew (flight or cabin) who just stood by and allowed this to happen on board the aircraft they were assigned to manage are just as guilty.

[Piltdown Man]

PDR1 - Ego? I think not. People have asked a question, DR got the facts and posted them. And then you didn't bother to read them. Otherwise you would not have missed the second clause "...or device designed to carry one or more persons..." which I think covers mobility aids. I'll agree that again this was poorly handled, but this is typical of today's customer services, not just UA. Try dealing with the half witted, pernicious, grasping, don't give a toss cretins at a well known mobile phone provider. They make UA look saints by comparison.

[whiterock]

I would like to think that any flight crew would NOT get involved in ANY dispute on the ground whilst preparing for their flight and not be expected to in any circumstances.

Those who think it a good idea to involve the crew in what may turn into a stressful situation prior to flight would do well to recall BE548.

Air travel used to be a fast way to travel, exciting, pleasurable and safe. We have lost most of that, lets not jeopardize the safety aspect.

[slats11]

I find it quite interesting how all those posters who said something along the lines of 'nothing happens without my approval' or 'I'm the commander, I make the calls' have gone awfully quiet recently.

This incident may well result in a thorough, and much needed, clarification of how and when responsibility passes from ground to cockpit.

Agreed

In the future I will want to quickly and quietly meet with anyone boarding the aircraft to offload a passenger to gauge their attitude/ competence/ expertise etc.


I think you are better of being aware of issue and trying your best to resolve he situation than sitting behind a locked door in ignorance. You can try and duck responsibility, only to have responsibility find you in the courtroom. That said, I really want the pilots doing their pre-flight stuff without disturbance, which is why this should all be resolved before the aircraft.


The dividing line beyond ground staff responsibility and PIC responsibility is I suspect fairly blurred.

The CofC are reviewed from time to time, but have their origin decades ago:
1. A time when the Captain often stood near the door while Pax boarding.
2. And a time when pax might walk across the tarmac to board (even now is is sometimes a bus ride to the aircraft ). This meant the pax had passed through the gate sometime and some distance away, and any senior ground staff are some distance away.
Under both these conditions, it is not unreasonable for the PIC to have a lot of responsibility for any difficulties with final boarding / seating. On smaller planes they still do - sometimes moving pax around to help balance load.

Again, I suspect the airline's legal departments have always considered "denied boarding" and "deplaning" as quite different processes. Over many years CC, and ground staff and pilots may have pragmatically equated the two situations as simply "You were going to fly but now you aren't." But I suspect there has been a critical distinction in the legal department thinking and the the CofC. Frontline staff are perhaps now learning this distinction.

Look at it from legals perspective
1. Involuntary deplaning is high profile and high risk = avoid this at all costs
2. Want pilots quarantined from these issues. Ground staff are into people management. Pilots are into flight management.
3. Easier to be chasing a ground staff member for a report / answering a complaint than chasing a pilot.

So deny boarding for commercial reasons. Once you are on you are on - possession = 99% ownership. You only deplane someone for operational reasons - which is PIC call.

Anyway we can see where this is going:
1. Some LEO are saying deplaning isn't their responsibility. Its an airline problem to solve. More LEO will soon be thinking this way.
2. Pilots will reaffirm they don't want this problem (I believe as per the original intent of legal and CofC). If someone is in a seat and no operational reason to deplane, they ride.
3. Pax aren't going to tolerate deplaning in favour of repositioning crew. They now know their rights
4. No airline (nor anyone else) wants a repeat

So CofC will be clarified, and won't be subjugated by DH crew.
PIC will likely end up aware they carry at least some responsibility for everything on board - mitigate this by not deplaning pax unless operationally necessary. And if necessary, expect a very scripted and company approved process.

[DaveReidUK]

And let's remember, we are talking about legal definitions which may not be the same as common English language usage.

Yes, but a word doesn't have a legal definition unless it's defined legally. :O

In other words, a court will rule that every term in a contract has its everyday meaning, by default, unless it has a more specific meaning defined in the contract preamble.

There is no such specific meaning offered for "boarding" in the Conditions of Carriage so, as previous posters have pointed out, anyone trying to claim that a passenger sitting in his/her assigned seat hasn't "boarded" will be laughed out of court.

[slats11]

@DingerX
Ian W can go on about "The Chain of Command", but it's a jet parked at the gate before the captain accepts it.

DingerX, personally I would argue if flight crew are on the deck and preflighting and pax are boarding (after confirmation from flight crew that plane is good to board), then PIC has accepted jet - and assumed significant responsibility.

This thread has demonstrated a fair bit of heterogeneity about the limits of PIC authority and responsibility. It appears likely these limits will now be defined elsewhere. There is one fundamental constant however - responsibility and authority always go hand in hand, and they will remain the opposite faces of the same coin.

[RAT 5]

Who's in charge, doors open?
Captain has accepted the a/c; station manager informs him that the company has ordered him off the a/c and to return to the crew room, no information known. What does the captain do; he wants to go home? Who's in charge?
Captain has accepted the a/c; station manager informs him that the company has ordered him, the station manager, to off-load 4 pax to allow DH crew. What does the captain do; he wants to go home? Who's in charge?

IMHO the captain can not be held responsible for the 'assault' on the pax because he had no knowledge of it nor could have been expected to anticipate it. I've only had one occasion to off-load a pax on arrival. They had refused CA orders during the flight. Station manger altered before arrival. He arrived with suitably imposing police officers and the pax was escorted off in civil manner, in full view of all the pax, to applause. The Station Manager was in charge of the whole affair and coordinated any prosecution on behalf of the company. I just wrote a report and disappeared PDQ to the hotel.

There is a thread on JB discussing 'volunteers.' I wonder what others might do if they were the victim: you are a legitimate pax with full fare ticket and seated. Some unknown bouncer type guys start ordering you around in a manner you consider unlawful. They are not police and you have committed no offence. They then start to 'attack and man-handle you in an unacceptable manner.' You strike out to defend yourself. What then? They flatten you into pulp and charge you with assault? That can't charge you with resisting arrest; that doesn't apply. So if you resist in such a way as needed to defend your person what could be the consequences? You are not a volunteer, but have been declared one. (read JB)

[FIRESYSOK]

Captains have very little say in boarding-related matters. Airlines have systematically eroded captain authority to the point that captains have actually been reported to police for interfering with gate agent duties.

Everyone wants to see this captain hung out to dry because he didn't act to intervene. Pilots are perceived as sky gods by many, neutered by company policies in reality, and thrown under the bus when the company or traveling public need an 'out'.

You can't have it all ways. It's part of the reason this job isn't worth that much anymore.

[Jet II]

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is 100% responsible. Are airlines going to argue, in front of a county or federal court, that the captain is not completely in command when an aircraft is at the gate?

My first reaction to the lawyers claim is that there is some ignorance here. The doors are open, the a/c is not 'in flight' and has not yet departed. The engineers would be in charge of dispatching the a/c from a maintenance point of view; the state manager/dispatcher is responsible for ensuring the correct passengers are on board, and solving any consequential problems. The captain might become involved if there is a safety issue towards the a/c or the personnel. Neither was the case, so I fail to understand how the captain can be held responsible for a decision & chain of events that they were never at any time involved with. Even if the doors had closed and they were taxying, and the station manager ordered a 'return to gate' I suspect the captain would comply. So, IMHO, there are times when the captain is NOT 100% in charge of what happens to/with the a/c. It is his toy to do with as ordered by the company not as he would if he owned the football.

As captain I would not be best pleased if someone tried to lay this debacle at my door. The only way that could happen is if the captain intervened and instructed the bouncers to 'remove' the pax.

I agree - from a legal standpoint it isnt even the Captains aircraft until Engineering have signed off all their paperwork and the Captain signs to accept the aircraft.

Of course the Captain will have some responsibility for the Airline operation as regards passengers and freight but even that seems a rather grey area (as shown by this thread)

[lomapaseo]

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is 100% responsible.

He didn't say that

Some folks are implying that's what he meant. The comment was made in a conversational tone implying to me that sometimes it applies.

[slats11]

Everyone wants to see this captain hung out to dry because he didn't act to intervene. Pilots are perceived as sky gods by many, neutered by company policies in reality, and thrown under the bus when the company or traveling public need an 'out'.

I don't think thats true. I don't believe any of us know all the circumstances, but my feeling is most people are not blaming the pilot.

Personally I feel sorry for all concerned - the pax obviously, but also the staff and the LEO. No one wanted this. No one. It quickly spiralled out of control and went somewhere no-one anticipated. There were some latent risks, and in this case the holes started lining up.

But in general (and not pertaining specifically to this case), I suspect PIC are at risk of getting caught up if someone else makes an error or oversteps his/her authority. If there is a major problem onboard, then I don't think a suggestion that PIC has zero responsibility will fly.

Overall I think the public treats pilots with a substantial degree of respect and esteem. However the attitude of a few here doesn't help. And all sorts of people read this site.

[RAT 5]

If there is a major problem onboard, then I don't think a suggestion that PIC has zero responsibility will fly.

I know what you mean, and in this case it is also a question of who created the major problem. What is unfortunate to this bar-room discussion is we may never know the outcome of any UAL internal enquiry. I'm sure we will discover the outcome of any claim by the pax. That will be very public. The night off the long knives will be very private, I'm sure; unless some one falls on their sword conspicuously.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Everyone wants to see this captain hung out to dry because ...
No, not everyone. I want to see United hung out to dry (and of course the thug who actually committed the assault needs to go to prison), but beyond that I'm happy for the courts to decide where in the various corporate structures which responsibilities lie.

[Skillsy]

What surprises me with everyone now having a camera in their hand is why this sort of situation has taken so long to actually occur and why protocols to protect the airline were not drawn up for circumstances like this. Image if this was someone returning for a funeral/end of life situation being asked to miss a loved one slipping away?

The second thing is why did security went all ballistic initially? There are a number of basic methods including non-confrontational/physical methods. I would expect a pub bouncer to have more acumen than those who perpetrated the alleged assault on the Doctor.

Finally, as this was spiraling out of control, where was the voice of reason from a senior ground crew member? Phones recording the carnage everywhere videoing a paying passenger bleeding, being dragged from the plane... what could possibly go wrong?

From what I can see is that there are too many people with the word "security" in the USA not adequately trained in avoiding conflicts and that UAL have some serious issues with how they manage risky situations. Chartering a six seater aircraft and a taxi fare either end, may have saved the airline and the bosses job. I've never had a bad experience with United and wish the staff all the best but please grow some cojones when it's going tits up.

[PaxBritannica]

What surprises me with everyone now having a camera in their hand is why this sort of situation has taken so long to actually occur and why protocols to protect the airline were not drawn up for circumstances like this. Image if this was someone returning for a funeral/end of life situation being asked to miss a loved one slipping away?

The second thing is why did security went all ballistic initially? There are a number of basic methods including non-confrontational/physical methods. I would expect a pub bouncer to have more acumen than those who perpetrated the alleged assault on the Doctor.

Finally, as this was spiraling out of control, where was the voice of reason from a senior ground crew member? Phones recording the carnage everywhere videoing a paying passenger bleeding, being dragged from the plane... what could possibly go wrong?

.

We don't know what the LEO's were told by whoever summoned them - possibly they were told he'd been disruptive and dangerous. In that case, the person who misrepresented the situation is significantly to blame.

I note that an eyewitness said that the person who tried to obtain 'volunteers' was less than pleasant:

Powell said he understood the airline's reasoning for removing passengers, but he didn't understand why they didn't take care of the situation before boarding — or why the supervisor who handled it did so with such an annoyed, "belligerent" tone.

"The tone immediately turned me off," Powell said. "She accelerated the situation. It was poor leadership."

[Gauges and Dials]

Just my opinion, but all of this is reflective of the society we now live in. It's easier (and more timely in a very time constrained world) to eliminate issues immediately rather than to take the time to deal with them in a common sense manner. Life is now moving too fast to negotiate and certainly to investigate the facts and get to the ground truth as a means to a proper solution.


That's part of the story, but I believe a larger part stems from the propensity of power to corrupt. Our post-9/11 security hysteria has placed, in the hands of flight attendants, gate staff, and pretty much everyone employed at an airport, the power to ruin anyone's day by labeling them a 'security threat'.

In the past, none of the hiring or training practices for those positions needed to be particularly nuanced at screening out those with a propensity to bully or with similar psychiatric impairments, because they had little power to harrass others. With that having changed, the hiring, screening, training, and supervisory practices may have been slow to catch up.

[dublinpilot]

A lot of people seem to be arguing about what "boarded" means.

But in this case it seems to be irrelevant, as UL was not allowed to deny the good Dr boarding, even at the gate.

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

This was not an oversold flight, unless we count the DH crew as having confirmed reserved space.

We should then note the definition of "confirmed reserved space"

Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a “zero fare ticket,” and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger.

Also note the definition of "Zero fare ticket"

Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests.

So DH crew, even if booked in on the flight, do not count as a "confirmed reservation" and therefore do not get priority over fare paying passengers. A fare paying passenger can not be denied boarding in favour of a DH crew. To do so would be illegal, no matter what UL's CoC or company policy says.

UL simply can't legally deny a passenger boarding because they want to board a DH crew. Of course they can make an offer sufficiently big enough that someone voluntarily decides to give up their seat.

In my mind, the definition of boarding is irrelevant in this case, as UL were not legally able to deny boarding to the Dr, in favour of their crew.

[Gauges and Dials]

The second thing is why did security went all ballistic initially?

I believe that anyone who grew up in the US, and thinks back to his or her high school class, and thinks of their classmates who went into low-level law-enforcement, has the answer to this question.

Well-managed and prestigious police departments do an excellent job of attracting people interested in public service, and screening out those who are attracted to the profession because they enjoy exercising power. The rest of the profession is left with less choice and fewer options in hiring.

[Piper_Driver]

It is time for corporate culture at United to change. I too have seen their practice of lying to customers on many occasions. Ever hear of "flight cancelled due to weather at the destination airport" when you can pull up the METARs and TAFs and the conditions are CAVOK? This is done so that compensation does not need to be paid to the PAX for the cancelled flight.

The bottom line is that you may not make money on every flight. Flaunting the law in order to gain the lowest cost passage for a DH crew is an example of this. The founder of the company where I work as an executive once famously said "I would rather lose money than reputation". This is pounded into the employee's brains with each and every mandatory training we receive several times a year.

[ayroplain]

That's part of the story, but I believe a larger part stems from the propensity of power to corrupt. Our post-9/11 security hysteria has placed, in the hands of flight attendants, gate staff, and pretty much everyone employed at an airport, the power to ruin anyone's day by labeling them a 'security threat'. I
If ever a nail was hit on the head this is it.

In addition, this very fact entices all sorts of otherwise non-entity and undesirable types into an industry that grants them that power and they revel in it, accountable to nobody. That's why, in this instance, you had these vicious thugs arriving on board and, when they saw a helpless elderly man who was prepared to stand up for his rights, took particular pleasure in pulling him out of his seat, bashing his head off the seat opposite and then dragging him out like a sack of potatoes. Disgraceful that they have only been suspended instead of being charged with causing GBH and remanded in custody. If this sort of thuggery is not punished to the maximum it will serve as no example to others of the same mind.

[Piltdown Man]

The fact is any company can do whatever they want, whenever they want. If you have stuck to your side if the bargain, and the other side do not supply what they are contractually bound to do, then your remedy is to be found in the civil courts. Unboarded, deplaned, evicted, denied boarding it doesn't matter. So whether the positioning crew were late, no charge rebates, top priority - must fly is irrelevant. Someone somewhere decided this man had to get off. His status, rights and entitlement changed as soon as that decision was made. It is just a shame that some believe he had an absolute human right to insist that he was taken on that flight. That has never, ever been how this part of the world works.

[pax britanica]

I think you can pretty much summarise this whole incident in one phrase

'The Death of Common Sense' which was the title of a book published in the US in 1994 and on the first page has the comment

'The book provides numerous examples of how bureaucratic rigidity, costly and ineffective regulation, and overly complex procedural rules have superseded good judgement and common sense'

Whwere was the common sense from the gate staff realising there would be a problem with 4DH staff

Where was the common sense among the cabin crew before claling the cops

Where was the commons ense among the law enforcement officrs

Where was the common sense again among the cabin crew wehn this degenerates intoa bleeding man being dragged from the plane

Where was the common sense from the Flight deck who must have been aware of the kerfuffle down the back -it must have made alot of noise and surely the In chrge had to tell the Captain the cops were coming

Where was the common sense in UA management about flexibility when DH crews were being boarded- don't UA aircraft have a jump seat which one of them could have used allowing Dr Dao to keep his seat.

The answer of course is that it is really dead suffocated by processes, procedures and regulations which punish severly anyone who infringes them even if they are doing the right thing.

A story for our time

[Piper_Driver]

The fact is any company can do whatever they want, whenever they want. If you have stuck to your side if the bargain, and the other side do not supply what they are contractually bound to do, then your remedy is to be found in the civil courts. Unboarded, deplaned, evicted, denied boarding it doesn't matter. So whether the positioning crew were late, no charge rebates, top priority - must fly is irrelevant. Someone somewhere decided this man had to get off. His status, rights and entitlement changed as soon as that decision was made. It is just a shame that some believe he had an absolute human right to insist that he was taken on that flight. That has never, ever been how this part of the world works.



That attitude is why United will lose billions in this case. Everyone in business is bound by laws in the countries they operate in. In this case the PAX was within his rights under federal law and under his contract with the company. I remember a quote from a business text I read near the start of my career. "Don't mess with the eagle". The eagle is this case is federal law. United stands to pay a heavy price for asserting that it's operational convenience trumps federal law.

[etudiant]

UAL stock has held up pretty well during this PR debacle.
That suggests investors, who presumably have access to competent legal guidance, are confident that no serious damage will be done to the enterprise.
Does UAL have some sort of insurance cover for errors and mistakes in passenger management?

[Peter H]

United did NOT take David Dao's bags off plane | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4413610/United-gave-doctor-s-luggage-runaround.html)
... apologies if already posted
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03 (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03/3F434AE900000578-4413610-image-a-5_1492223091029.jpg)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03/3F434AE900000578-4413610-image-a-5_1492223091029.jpg

[SalNichols]

The fact is any company can do whatever they want, whenever they want. If you have stuck to your side if the bargain, and the other side do not supply what they are contractually bound to do, then your remedy is to be found in the civil courts. Unboarded, deplaned, evicted, denied boarding it doesn't matter. So whether the positioning crew were late, no charge rebates, top priority - must fly is irrelevant. Someone somewhere decided this man had to get off. His status, rights and entitlement changed as soon as that decision was made. It is just a shame that some believe he had an absolute human right to insist that he was taken on that flight. That has never, ever been how this part of the world works.



Technically incorrect. His status in the eyes of UA might have changed, but his absolute rights under the CFR and UA's own CofC did NOT change. And that sir, is exactly what is going to bite UA in the arse.

[DaveReidUK]

Technically incorrect. His status in the eyes of UA might have changed

In fact the only change in his status was from that of a boarded passenger with a confirmed reservation and a seat, to a boarded passenger with a confirmed reservation and a seat who had declined an offer to be voluntarily "re-accommodated" and who had even explained to United the reasons why he needed to be on that flight.

but his absolute rights under the CFR and UA's own CofC did NOT change.As effectively acknowledged by United's CEO, so who are any of us to argue with that ?

[albatross]

United did NOT take David Dao's bags off plane | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4413610/United-gave-doctor-s-luggage-runaround.html)
... apologies if already posted
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03 (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03/3F434AE900000578-4413610-image-a-5_1492223091029.jpg)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03/3F434AE900000578-4413610-image-a-5_1492223091029.jpg

Interesting
Even if the pax had left the aircraft how long would the delay have been to find and offload his bags? Is that not required by law?

[KelvinD]

United have now modified their booking policy re staff travel, saying they will have to be confirmed, with seats allocated, at least one hour before a flight's departure.
United Airlines changes policy after 'horrific' passenger ordeal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39617879)

[wiggy]

Given some previous debate there's a danger the media are going to start muddying the waters with the general public again with the likes of the above because to many "staff travel" means airline staff not working and off on holiday or "commuting" to/from work. The UK's Guardian is carrying similar saying "off duty" staff will have to be confirmed.

I'm assuming the actual process UA are introducing now is that Duty staff will be confirmed an hour out. TBH I'm surprised UA haven't been at least blocking seats for "must travel" staff an hour out or more before this incident - if not they've been holding themselves hostage to fortune.

[Cows getting bigger]

I'm sure some Big Cheese will eventually ask the airlines to quantify ($) the effect of removing the ability to overbook. If the number presented is anything less than a sizeable slice of shareholder profit, I suspect the rules may be changed.

[SamYeager]

United have now modified their booking policy re staff travel, saying they will have to be confirmed, with seats allocated, at least one hour before a flight's departure.
United Airlines changes policy after 'horrific' passenger ordeal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39617879)


Reported on BBC breakfast news this morning. Seems clear that various news outlets outside the USA are going to continue following this story. Every time this story comes up so does a brief excerpt of the video giving United more unwelcome publicity.

[dublinpilot]

United have now modified their booking policy re staff travel, saying they will have to be confirmed, with seats allocated, at least one hour before a flight's departure.
United Airlines changes policy after 'horrific' passenger ordeal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39617879)

I find this interesting. It shows that United are still trying to spin things, because this still doesn't solve their problem.

As shown here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-28.html#post9742435) crew don't meet the legal definition of confirmed reserved seating, even if the airline has reserved a seat for them. So passengers still can't be denied boarding in favour of crew.

Of course knowing about the problem in advance does allow the gate crew more time to try and find a solution such as a pax voluntary giving up their seat.

Definitions from CFR 250
Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a “zero fare ticket,” and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger.

Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests.

[WHBM]

United have now modified their booking policy re staff travel, saying they will have to be confirmed, with seats allocated, at least one hour before a flight's departure.
United Airlines changes policy after 'horrific' passenger ordeal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39617879)Well firstly, there seems no point in imposing this IF there are actually seats available.

But what a poor decision. It seems that pax with confirmed reservations on a full flight will STILL be bumped by the Ops department seeking cheap crewing logistics. It's just that they will now be bumped at the gate rather than when sat on board, and all the media comments about "confirmed" reservations being in truth a lottery still apply. So Dr Dao would still be arbitrarily selected by the gate agent not to travel. And if he objects there about this, then the agent will doubtless STILL send for the "law enforcement", seeing as they are only disallowed now to pull someone from inside the aircraft. Presumably the same thugs will be sent as before, with the same attitudes, and thus Dr Dao will STILL get beaten up and dragged away from the counter by the feet,

Great customer-primacy decision Munoz. Only took you a week to think this one up.

[A30yoyo]

"If airlines can't get passengers to switch of their own volition, they're allowed to bump fliers involuntarily.In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights, according to data from the Department of Transportation"...from a CNN piece on the incident

I thought the economist Julian Simon's theory of sealed bids at the gate by shiny, happy overbooked passengers for compensation was supposed to completely eliminate involuntary bumping. Sounds like the concept has been watered down(vouchers!!?), misapplied and has led to sloppy thinking.
Maybe new technology (internet, mobile phones) could enable a genuine sealed bidding system with instant genuine money payout by Paypal, but it needs to be done strictly at the gate not on the plane! (Pilots and Flight Attendant unions should be banning any onboard haggling) And airlines/regulators need to face the possibility that just occasionally the system won't generate volunteers...so what then?

[ExGrunt]

In the age of the 24-hour news cycle, I doubt UA will "suffer" much at all. This will be forgotten by tomorrow night at the latest replaced by Ms Kardashian's ass or something similarly extraordinarily important, and no, I don't work for UA (although, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use to fly for the "regional partner" in question).

Airlines have done much worse things...

Well, here we are a week later and the story still features prominently on major news sites. Indeed over the last week this has been the main topic of conversation with most people I have met. It has touched a particularly raw nerve.

Even now, I think we are only at 'the end of the beginning'. The politicians have yet to weigh in fully. Do not doubt they will go for the airlines because it is an easy win open goal. consider

1. Most Senate Committee members travel by air, so will have personal experience of 'US customer service';

2. Some will be facing re-election shortly and being seen to be tough on unfair airlines is easy and has no taxpayer cost;

3. The performance of the various airline parties to date has been pretty poor - so unless they up their game they will be seen as an easy mark.

While all the evidence is yet to emerge, I suspect when it does it will it will not make pretty reading. The damage to UA will not come from the lawsuit but the probability that regulation will change.

[Airbubba]

From the LA Times:

Police report says passenger fought with officers before he was pulled from United flight

Hugo Martin Contact Reporter

April 24, 2017

The Chicago aviation officers who forcibly removed a passenger from a United Airlines flight filed reports saying the traveler was “aggressive” when responding to requests to give up his seat and flailed his arms while fighting with officers.

The reports, released Monday in response to Freedom of Information Act requests by the Los Angeles Times and others, contradict videos of the incident caught by fellow passengers on their cellphones and viewed by millions of people worldwide. Those videos show the passenger, Kentucky physician David Dao, refusing to give up his spot on a full flight, then being yanked from the seat by the officers, hitting his head against another seat and being dragged down the airplane’s aisle.

The ensuing public outrage prompted United Airlines to issue several apologies and launch a review of its procedures when dealing with sold-out flights. Chief Executive Oscar Munoz has promised that airline employees won’t call on law enforcement to remove passengers in the future if the incidents don’t involve safety or security.

The incident reports also reveal for the first time the names of the four officers involved in the incident, which left Dao, 69, with a concussion and other injuries. All four of those officers have been placed on administrative leave by the Chicago Department of Aviation, city records say.

The officers were identified as James Long, Mauricio Rodriguez Jr., Steven Smith and Sgt. John Moore. Two of the officers had previously been disciplined for workplace violations, according to city records.

Dao’s attorney, Chicago personal injury lawyer Thomas Demetrio, called the incident reports “utter nonsense. Consider the source.”

The April 9 flight from Chicago to Louisville, Ky., was full, and United tried to clear four seats to make room for airline employees who needed to work a shift the next day in Louisville. When the airline couldn’t get enough passengers to voluntarily give up their seats, the carrier picked four passengers to remove, including Dao.

In the incident reports, two of the officers blame Dao for his injuries, saying the passenger’s flailing motions made the officers lose their grip on him, causing him to fall face first into the armrest of a nearby seat.

After he was removed from the plane, the reports say, Dao was lying on the floor on the jet bridge talking to the officers when he bolted past them to get back into the plane. He agreed to leave the plane voluntarily to get medical attention, the reports say.

According to the police reports, Long, Rodriguez and Smith all urged Dao to leave his seat but he refused. Long tried to pull Dao out of his seat, with the help of Rodriguez and Smith, according to the reports.

But in his report, Long said, “the subject started swinging his arms up and down with a closed fist. Ofc. Long was able to grab the subject and pull him away from the window seat towards the aisle. But suddenly the subject started flailing and fighting.”

Long said Dao knocked the officer’s arm away, “which caused the subject to fall, hit, and injured his mouth on the armrest on the other side of the aisle.”

Rodriguez’s description of the incident was similar. “The subject then started flailing his arms and started to fight with Ofc. Long,” he wrote in the incident report.

Long had been suspended from his job for five days in March for ignoring a supervisor’s orders to keep vehicles from driving into a restricted area of the airport, according to documents provided by the city of Chicago.

Moore, who arrived after Dao was removed from the plane, had previously been disciplined at least seven times from 1999 to 2009 for failing to show up for work without notifying a supervisor, according to city records.


Police report says passenger fought with officers before he was pulled from United flight - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-dao-20170424-story.html)

The police report documents are here:

http://documents.latimes.com/incident-report-about-passengers-removal-united-flight/

[Gauges and Dials]

c'mon, they even take courses in how to write these reports.

Let's see, almost identical language, and then this gem:

Long had been suspended from his job for five days in March for ignoring a supervisor’s orders to keep vehicles from driving into a restricted area of the airport, according to documents provided by the city of Chicago.

Moore, who arrived after Dao was removed from the plane, had previously been disciplined at least seven times from 1999 to 2009 for failing to show up for work without notifying a supervisor, according to city records.

These guys aren't real cops; they're wannabes.

[1a sound asleep]

more fake news

[Rick777]

I'm not defending these guys, but there is a lot more to the story than just an innocent guy being dragged off a plane.

[ThreeThreeMike]

Is there a forum on PP for dumb passenger behavior? This isn't worth discussing IMHO.

[stilton]

What else do you expect cops to say ?

This is pretty standard covering their tracks, i'm just surprised they didn't say 'I felt threatened'


Lucky he wasn't shot by these idiots.

[ZFT]

How to ensure the story stays in the news!! Not what UAL want, I'm sure.

[gearlever]

more fake news

Sounds like alternative facts to me.

[Gauges and Dials]

I'm not defending these guys, but there is a lot more to the story than just an innocent guy being dragged off a plane.

Life seldom hands us neatly-packaged morality plays; the world is full of nuance.

[Basil]

Re the report, methinks MRDA doth say it all :hmm:

[Hotel Tango]

Some of you have already forgotten that Dr Dao should never have been forcibly off-loaded in the first place! The security guys involved remain nothing less than thugs!

[davidjpowell]

What else do you expect cops to say ?

This is pretty standard covering their tracks, i'm just surprised they didn't say 'I felt threatened'


Lucky he wasn't shot by these idiots.

IIRC that there was no chance of being shot, as they were not trusted with Guns.

[SLF3]

They could have got a gun from the bathroom.

[Airbubba]

Will the attorneys now sue the City of Chicago?

Passenger dragged from plane reaches settlement with United Airlines

United Airlines has reached a settlement agreement with the passenger who was bloodied and dragged down the aisle of a plane after refusing to give up his seat, attorneys for the passenger said Thursday.

Dr. David Dao, 69, of Elizabethtown, Ky., suffered a concussion, broken nose and sinus injury during the April 9 incident on a plane at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, according to his attorney, Thomas Demetrio.

Demetrio praised United for accepting responsibility for the incident and announcing policy changes aimed at preventing similar incidents.

"For this acceptance of corporate accountability, United is to be applauded," Demetrio said.

Dao's attorneys declined to disclose the amount of the settlement.


United Airlines passenger dragged from plane at OHare reaches settlement with airline - Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-united-passenger-dragging-settlement-0428-biz-20170427-story.html)

[Amadis of Gaul]

Didn't take long, did it?

[jackieofalltrades]

Out of nosey curiosity I am intrigued as to the value of the settlement. Pity, but not surprisingly, it has a non-disclosure clause.

[The Sultan]

Two first class upgrades (lower 48 only).

[galaxy flyer]

Those upgrades will be on a Gulfstream

[Airbubba]

United's statement on the settlement:

Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao
April 27, 2017

CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.

Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - Apr 27, 2017 (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-27-Statement-from-United-Airlines-Regarding-Resolution-with-Dr-David-Dao)

The attorneys' statement:

April 27, 2017
2:00 pm

News Release

Dr. David Dao has reached an amicable settlement with United Airlines for the injuries he received in his April 9th ordeal, which was captured on video and viewed worldwide. The settlement was negotiated by Dr. Dao’s lawyers, Thomas A. Demetrio of Corboy & Demetrio and Stephen L. Golan of Golan Christie Taglia, and the legal representatives for United. A condition of the settlement includes a provision that the amount remain confidential. Dr. Dao and his attorneys agreed to that condition.

Demetrio praised Mr. Oscar Munoz:

‘Mr. Munoz said he was going to do the right thing, and he has. In addition, United has taken full responsibility for what happened on Flight 3411, without attempting to blame others, including the City of Chicago. For this acceptance of corporate accountability, United is to be applauded.’

The settlement was reached on the same day United Airlines announced multiple positive changes to improve the customer experience. According to Demetrio, ‘Dr. Dao has become the unintended champion for the adoption of changes which will certainly help improve the lives of literally millions of travelers.’ In addition, Demetrio stated, ‘I sincerely hope that all other airlines make similar changes and follow United’s lead in helping to improve the passenger flying experience with an emphasis on empathy, patience, respect and dignity.’

http://www.corboydemetrio.com/media/news/105_Dao%20Settlement%20News%20Release%20.pdf

[galaxy flyer]

It must be a pretty large settlement considering they indemnified the City of Chicago and Republic, the contractor AND praised UA.

My question, if I were Mr. Dao, "UA, how much is that confidentiality agreement worth to you?"

[Wannabe Flyer]

Smart move. Lawyers fees alone would have cost UA a large amount over & above the final settlement in a protracted battle. The UA lawyers lost out sone good fees here. End amount must have been extremely juicy for Dr Dao to agree so fast. "I am goong to make you an offer you can't resist"

[Airbubba]

Will the attorneys now sue the City of Chicago?

Later media reports include this statement which doesn't seem to be in the initial news release:

Demetrio said Dao does not plan to pursue a separate lawsuit against the city of Chicago or the officers employed by the Chicago Department of Aviation.

“No one else in the entire world is going to be sued by Dr. Dao,” said the attorney, who has been involved in several high-profile personal-injury settlements. “United has stepped up to the plate and hit a home run.”

United Airlines reaches amicable settlement with passenger dragged from a plane - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-david-dao-20170427-story.html)

[armchairpilot94116]

I would venture to say the pay off is not counted by the thousands, but rather counted by the millions.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Single or double digit?

[hunterboy]

What sort of figure would have made it worthwhile for United?

[guadaMB]

What sort of figure would have made it worthwhile for United?

There United didn't have the first punch advantage.
I suppose all was handled by Dr. Dao's attorneys, under Dr.Dao's CONDITIONS.
Worthwhile?
The shorter this case was on the spot, the better for United.
Figures aren't (IMHO) important in the long range of business...:cool:

[sudden twang]

Leaving the merits of this case aside, Airlines better brace themselves for emboldened passengers doing what they like and when challenged by the crew demanding recompense.
I see it's already started on a LGW KIN.

[megan]

Airlines better brace themselves for emboldened passengers doing what they like and when challenged by the crew demanding recompensePax cannot do what they like. If its illegal the judge will determine their sentence or fine, as many of the bogan brigade have already found.

Mr. Dao was quite within his legal rights and did absolutely nothing wrong to receive what he ended up getting aboard the aircraft. Once he said he wasn't volunteering that should have been the end of the matter, and the airline should have found another individual who would have been happy to take whatever was on offer to give up his/her seat.

[Wannabe Flyer]

First movers advantage. I suspect the amount would have been to the tune of $50+ million as a good defence would have cost UA about that much with a chance of a higher Punitive payout from the Jury & a protracted PR nightmare cost.

[DaveReidUK]

End amount must have been extremely juicy for Dr Dao to agree so fast. "I am going to make you an offer you can't resist"

I just feel sorry for the horse ...

[GotTheTshirt]

I see as normal there is the usual no disclosure on the amount but how do you stop it??
A very large amount of money must go through the system so why would banks or investment services not know or even neightbours ??

[galaxy flyer]

Neighbors maybe, but funds transfers that large go thru the ACH as numbered accounts. Probably his local bank would only know thru their personal knowledge of him and his accounts. Blabbing could expose one to substantial penalties, I suspect.

[Piltdown Man]

I can see how this is going to play out now. Once a person boards (quite when that actually is is subject to another argument)'they can insist that they are taken to their destination, no ifs, no buts. Any attempt to deplane them afterwards for whatever reason will now involve a fight. The passenger can not lose. If they are whacked they claim, if they are ejected they claim. The grasping public will not believe airlines when they are told an aircraft is unserviceable, weather is out of limits or passenger X has misbehaved. Over the years I've beeen accused of discrimination, lying, stupidity, over-reaction and so forth. It looks like more fun in the coming years.

[DaveReidUK]

That's unduly pessimistic IMHO.

A passenger who is violent/disruptive/abusive will still be able to be offloaded under the terms and conditions that he/she accepted when buying their ticket. Yes, you will need to be sure to follow the procedure to the letter, but don't you already do that?

And if a flight is cancelled because of weather or the aircraft goes tech, your bolshie passenger is hardly going to cling to their seat while everybody else disembarks - what would be the point?

[crippen]

and how is he going to spend his windfall? At 69 (?) his options are a bit limited.:E

[G-CPTN]

But he does have daughters.

Five children, apparently.

the Dao family has five children, four of whom are doctors in different locations around the United States.

Tim is the oldest child in the family at 34-years old and is a cardiologist in Plano, Texas.
The second son is named Ben and he’s 31. Ben is reportedly a medical graduate while their daughter Christine, 33, is a doctor in Durham, North Carolina.
The youngest of the four doctors in the family is Angela, who is 27 and graduated with a medical degree from the University of Kentucky.

The other daughter is Christine’s twin, Crystal. She’s reportedly a married mother who lives in Barrington, Illinois.

[armchairpilot94116]

Quite frankly a substantial amount was needed to effect the sea change needed in passenger treatment by airlines in America. I would imagine Munoz (he lost the upcoming Chairmanship position already) would want to take charge and put this thing to bed ASAP.


The amount has to have been large for Dao's lawyers to stop all other action against everyone else they could have charged.

Munoz did the right thing here, to have United take the fall on behalf of everyone else.

United was in a "no win" situation that could have only gotten worse as the wound got deeper and deeper and more infected.

[pilotmike]

United didn't have the first punch advantage
I guess not - that accolade must go to the 'security' people who decided physical violence was the way to sort it out!

[Herod]

and how is he going to spend his windfall???? At 69 (?) his options are a bit limited.

I take exception to that. I'm 70, feeling happier and fitter that I have done for a long time, and expect to have many more years yet.

[Chronus]

I too am 70. Given such luck I would spend the dosh on having all that skin stretch and bootox business,a set of brand new shining teg implants, Sinatra style hair implants, finish the whole thing off with one of those magnificent sculptured noses and get rid of the scaramouche thing I`ve got. Then get a sculpture made of my bootful body in the starkers and have it planted right there in the middle of every airport terminal in the US.