USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

[Just a spotter]

From USA Today, 10th April 2017

It appears from the report that United has a proactive approach to dealing with overbooked flights

A United spokesperson confirmed in an email Sunday night that a passenger had been taken off a flight in Chicago. "Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked," said the spokesperson. "After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation. Further details on the removed customer should be directed to authorities."https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/nation-now/2017/04/10/man-forcibly-removed-united-flight/100276054/

Video clip below

https://www.facebook.com/audra.dickerson/videos/10104378182069960/

[Basil]

How to get your PR dreadfully wrong.

I'm guessing that FD jumpseats and spare cabin crew seats were not available.

[tech log]

"After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."

But no apology for assaulting a fully paid up customer! He was bleeding.

I hope he absolutely rinses them in court.

[Jet II]

If he was seated on the aircraft why didnt they allow him to stay and offload the pax who hadn't got on the aircraft? - bad procedure by UA

Edit: I just noticed that they were offloaded so that staff could get on - well sorry but that is even worse. Although I do remember that when I was a flying spanner Customer Service people would often take it on themselves to give away my seat without recourse to Flt Ops - there was then the usual arguing at the gate when they were told to return my seat to me.

[IBMJunkman]

Funny, I always thought that, as a paid passenger doing nothing wrong, I would get to my destination.

Did not know I was partly responsible in helping the carrier get crew to their shift starting location.

[lomapaseo]

BTDT

In my case the flight became limited due to weather prior to takeoff and a selection process was done by last on first off..

Fortunately somebody else had my last name and was encouraged to get off.

In this case United probably should have canceled the flight for some reason and sorted out a solution in the terminal. That way everybody would be expected to get off, including the crew

[wiggy]

Did not know I was partly responsible in helping the carrier get crew to their shift starting location.

Well, without commenting on this incident but as a general response to that comment .....sometimes there's is a need (sometimes at short notice, sometimes not), to get positioning crew from A to B to operate another service out of B and if that isn't done then that subsequent service gets cancelled....the companies really aren't keen on that.

What normally happens in those cases is as Jet II alluded to - the correct number of seats should be "blocked" ahead of time by operations so that they are not allocated to commercial passengers during the check in or boarding process......one reason no doubt being to avoid embarrasing incidents........

As to this incident, the timing/sequence of what really happened here and what status the staff had....might have to wait and see. Personally I'd be gobsmacked if it was genuinely a case of staff on personal standby tickets displacing genuine commercials, but I guess we might never know.

[Airbubba]

And, it was not a United flight, it was a codeshare Jungle Jet ERJ-170 operated as United Express by Republic. As they say, it's a United flight until something happens, then all questions can be referred to 'our partner' Republic Airways.

That guy sure gets the drama queen award. Maybe he can join forces with Ravindra Gaikwad, the Indian MP who refused to deplane after finding out that he couldn't get a business class seat on an all economy flight.

Another video of the incident here:

https://twitter.com/stephenlaca/status/851433060293672961

Who were the law enforcement guys? U.S. Marshals from the ballcap logos? Their jackets just said 'Police' from what I saw in the videos.

United has already updated their terms of service:

https://twitter.com/gilbertjasono/status/851426033400262656/photo/1

[marconiphone]

Doesn't matter who was operating the flight. This is an international PR catastrophe for all US airlines - the video has gone global. If that was the only way of solving a problem, something is seriously, seriously wrong with the industry.

[DaveReidUK]

Whichever way you look at it, this has to be a spectacular own-goal for United (regardless of which partner carrier's name is in little letters beside the door).

It would have been far cheaper just to up the incentive a bit more to motivate another passenger to deplane voluntarily (or even just let the passengers sit and stew until somebody cracked), compare to the cost of the reported 2-hour delay and a ton of negative publicity.

And that's without whatever the guy gets awarded by the court ...

[Mango]

And Emirates isn't allowed to carry laptops to the USA.....

[ExXB]

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

Money talks, it should never be dragged screaming and kicking down the aisle.

[wiggy]

The way to get a volunteer is to keep raising the price, or change to cash rather than 'future travel' money. Or offer other incentives.

Can't argue with that, which is probably why it would be interesting to get the real and full story.

[clunckdriver]

United, or who ever you are, you REALLY need to fire your mangers and hire those who still behave in a human manner, and know how to both implement, and if required, enforce civilised behavior, there is NO WAY myself or any of my staff will ever fly on one of your "Cattle Cars" !

[Martin_123]

Chicago to Louisville is a 4 hour drive - by the time this ordeal was over, they could have just hired a car and sent their staff over by road. Narrow minded apes is all I can say

[PAXboy]

They have form in bad PR. One of their most famous is: United Breaks Guitars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

That stuff up was in 2008 and is still on the Internet. So many companies, not just airlines, have not yet discovered something called 'the camera phone'. So they deserve what they get.

[EDLB]

That will be a field day for the passenger lawyers with this video footage. That will cost UA way more than even a chartered 737 only for the standby crew transportation.
Hope that the decision making process in row 0 is better than this.

[daikilo]

United, or who ever you are, you REALLY need to fire your mangers and hire those who still behave in a human manner, and know how to both implement, and if required, enforce civilised behavior, there is NO WAY myself or any of my staff will ever fly on one of your "Cattle Cars" !

No, don't fire them, make this a learning point for the entire company. Don't ever do that again.

[Airbubba]

Who were the law enforcement guys? U.S. Marshals from the ballcap logos? Their jackets just said 'Police' from what I saw in the videos.

Apparently the officers were from the Barney Fife division of the Chicago Aviation Police. Famously, they aren't allowed to carry guns. :=

The officers who removed the man from the plane were Chicago Aviation Police personnel, not Chicago Police officers. Chicago Aviation Police are sworn officers who graduated from the Chicago Police Training Academy but they are not allowed to carry weapons. The Department of Aviation has yet to issue a statement.

https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/united-airlines-drags-passenger-plane-ohare-airport

Here's the original Facebook poster's account of the incident:

Bridges, a Louisville resident, gave her account of the flight Sunday night.

Passengers were told at the gate that the flight was overbooked and United, offering $400 and a hotel stay, was looking for one volunteer to take another flight to Louisville at 3 p.m. Monday. Passengers were allowed to board the flight, Bridges said, and once the flight was filled those on the plane were told that four people needed to give up their seats to stand-by United employees that needed to be in Louisville on Monday for a flight. Passengers were told that the flight would not take off until the United crew had seats, Bridges said, and the offer was increased to $800, but no one volunteered.

Then, she said, a manager came aboard the plane and said a computer would select four people to be taken off the flight. One couple was selected first and left the airplane, she said, before the man in the video was confronted.

Bridges said the man became "very upset" and said that he was a doctor who needed to see patients at a hospital in the morning. The manager told him that security would be called if he did not leave willingly, Bridges said, and the man said he was calling his lawyer. One security official came and spoke with him, and then another security officer came when he still refused. Then, she said, a third security official came on the plane and threw the passenger against the armrest before dragging him out of the plane.

The man was able to get back on the plane after initially being taken off – his face was bloody and he seemed disoriented, Bridges said, and he ran to the back of the plane. Passengers asked to get off the plane as a medical crew came on to deal with the passenger, she said, and passengers were then told to go back to the gate so that officials could "tidy up" the plane before taking off.

Bridges said the man shown in the video was the only person who was forcibly removed.

"Everyone was shocked and appalled," Bridges said. "There were several children on the flight as well that were very upset."

Video shows man forcibly removed from United flight from Chicago to Louisville (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/10/video-shows-man-forcibly-removed-united-flight-chicago-louisville/100274374/)

So the guy got back on the plane after being forcibly removed? :confused:

[Airbubba]

United will probably offer some free tickets to the guy:

Response to United Express Flight 3411

April 10, 2017

“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.” – Oscar Munoz, CEO, United Airlines

United - Newsroom - News Releases (http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124753)

[grizzled]

I am a Star Alliance Gold member who has, until now, used United and its partners when it was convenient and appropriate to do so. I was so angered by this story and video that I tried calling United to voice my concerns about this incident (I have been in the aviation business for more than 45 years). It is nigh impossible to talk to a real human via their "Customer Service" phone system so I submitted an email with my comments about this bizarre, needless -- and violent -- treatment of a customer (and suggestions on how to avoid similar events in the future).

I made it clear to United that I will no longer fly on United Airlines or any of its partners and I will encourage others to do the same -- at the very least until United makes a very public apology and assures its customers that this kind of event will NEVER be handled this way again. This incident shows a significant need for customer service training, new SOPs -- and of course some obvious PR lessons must be learned.

Almost inexplicable behavior.

[rotornut]

The BBC just picked up the story. I'll bet almost every media organization worldwide will carry the story. Terrible PR for United.

[BluSdUp]

Only in US.
Anyway, some PAX walked of in discust . Problem solved.

[twb3]

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.

[wingview]

How is it possible to board more pax than you can have?! They must have known that dead heading crew would take this flight. This should have been taking care of at the gate, not in the plane.
With that, you never can be sure to take a flight even when you've paid the full price?

UA is not having the best news these days...

[SLF3]

'I think it will set a terrible precedent if this passenger is rewarded for his behaviour.'

Better to set the precedent that it's acceptable to assault your customers?

[grizzled]

twb3

You're kidding, right?

[6000PIC]

I`m sure ALL DOCTORS will think twice now when the question is asked " Is there any Doctors on board ? " Shame , shame , shame on United. The land of the free and home of the brave has turned into the land of the terrorised and the home of the stupid.

[gearlever]

The rudest people in uniform I have seen on this planet were in the US.

Be it police, flight attendants, custom officers, security personal whatever.

[DaveReidUK]

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.

Even if you accept the principle that full-fare passengers can be involuntarily offloaded through no fault of their own, according to the accounts the doctor offered a perfectly valid reason why he should be allowed to keep his seat.


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.Straw man argument.

United have well and truly shot themselves in the foot on this occasion.

[Ambient Sheep]

The BBC just picked up the story. I'll bet almost every media organization worldwide will carry the story. Terrible PR for United.

Indeed. It's (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39554421) currently the #1 most read story on the BBC News website. Way to go, United.

[NWSRG]

When Law Enforcement Officers ask or order you to leave an airplane you comply. When airline employes ask or order you to do something on a plane you comply. Any question is resolved afterwards, out of the vehicle. Some Passengers think that buying a ticket entitles them to do whatever they want on board an airplane, it is not just so.

Except they asked for volunteers...

Volunteer: "A person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task."

[DaveReidUK]

Some Passengers think that buying a ticket entitles them to do whatever they want on board an airplane, it is not just so.

I suspect that most passengers simply think buying a ticket entitles them to sit down and be flown to their intended destination. :ugh:

[hitchens97]

Simple question for you guys in the industry

Why does there ever need to be an involuntary removal?

Surely you just raise the compensation until you get enough volunteers? I'm sure at $10K someone would have volunteered.

Or is it just the case the airline there's some law that says after x compensation is offered, you can do involuntary, and in this case United was too tight?

[bar none]

There is a limit to what airline employees can ask. Would you obey if an airline employee told you to jump out of an airborne aircraft. Of course not. It all depends on what is the definition of reasonable. It would seem to be unreasonable to ask a doctor who had business the following day to deplane.

[SLF3]

'Unruly behaviour is more and more widespread. Sometimes it needs to be dealt with the way we see in the video. Not the first nor the last.'

Not Bashar Assad. A doctor going to work.....

[Bealzebub]

Simple question for you guys in the industry
Why does there ever need to be an involuntary removal?

Any number of reasons from technical (broken seat) to behavioural (intoxicated passenger) and everything inbetween.

I am curious why security (police) were required for what should have been an operational matter. This situation (which hasn't been fully explained) superficiously seems to be a management failure, and by that I mean how the specific situation was managed. Any experienced pilot or crew member will tell You there are many ways to "skin a cat" and resolve a difficult situation. Dragging a passenger down the aisle by their heels wouldn't be a sensible resolution for most of them, as United are no doubt about to find out.

[West Coast]

I am curious why security (police) were required for what should have been an operational matter.


Dragging a pax down the aisle is a measure of last resort. UA has customer service personnel trained to deal with situations such as removal, there are protocols on how to identify the unlucky pax. That they got to that level means the person picked didn't play ball.

[hunterboy]

It does look like a simple case of assault . No violence was being offered by the passenger. I wonder how far these Security officials would have gone to remove the guy? Taser? Shoot him?

[Bealzebub]

Dragging a pax down the aisle is a measure of last resort. UA has customer service personnel trained to deal with situations such as removal, there are protocols on how to identify the unlucky pax. That they got to that level means the person picked didn't play ball.

Yes, I don't doubt that for one minute, and can understand how "protocols" failed. However, that usually means you find another solution that avoids getting to this situation.

[Cows getting bigger]

Protocols? Oh, it's OK to over sell tickets and then bump customers so you can position crew?

[hitchens97]

Any number of reasons from technical (broken seat) to behavioural (intoxicated passenger) and everything inbetween.
I am curious why security (police) were required for what should have been an operational matter. This situation (which hasn't been fully explained) superficiously seems to be a management failure, and by that I mean how the specific situation was managed. Any experienced pilot or crew member will tell You there are many ways to "skin a cat" and resolve a difficult situation. Dragging a passenger down the aisle by their heels wouldn't be a sensible resolution for most of them, as United are no doubt about to find out.

Sorry I should have been clearer. Why does there ever need to be an involuntary removal when you're overbooked?

[AluminumStructure]

There must be more to the story, that video was started well in to the event, but it certainly doesn't look good for UA at all.


I once had to reduce weight by 10 people in an unusual tailwind situation and the cash offer exceeded US$1,500 plus food, hotel, transportation, and the next flight confirmed, etc. People jumped at it. I feel bad for the first 2 people who accepted $500.


I would have rather cancelled the flight then let it get to the point of dragging people around - but - the good news is that, if this played out as published, this guy will probably be getting enough money to charter his own jet in the future.;)

[Bealzebub]

Protocols? Oh, it's OK to over sell tickets and then bump customers so you can position crew?
Yes, sometimes it happens, but it doesn't usually take too much ingenuity to avoid getting into this awful situation.
Sorry I should have been clearer. Why does there ever need to be an involuntary removal when you're overbooked? Because the airlines policy was to overbook. It appears here that the seats were needed for operational reasons. If you don't get enough volunteers you have to remove people who don't want to be removed. There are varying degrees of that, and in the worst case it might be necessary to deplane everybody and start again. Far better (and likely quicker in the circumstances) than ending up in this mess.

[HEMS driver]

Cha ching. I will take that blank check now.

I stopped flying on UAL twenty years ago, along with AA, because of their pizz poor service and attitudes.

We don't know what the airport police officers were told by UAL staff. They could have been asked to remove an unruly passenger.

[hitchens97]

There must be more to the story, that video was started well in to the event, but it certainly doesn't look good for UA at all.


I once had to reduce weight by 10 people in an unusual tailwind situation and the cash offer exceeded US$1,500 plus food, hotel, transportation, and the next flight confirmed, etc. People jumped at it. I feel bad for the first 2 people who accepted $500.


I would have rather cancelled the flight then let it get to the point of dragging people around - but - the good news is that, if this played out as published, this guy will probably be getting enough money to charter his own jet in the future.;)

Yeah, this is what I don't understand. You just keep raising the price until you get volunteers. I don't understand why it ever needs to be involuntary if you're overbooked.

[West Coast]

CGB

Yes, it is appropriate to overbook. Welcome to the airline world.

Bub

Don't equate the man being pulled off the plane as a failure of protocol. 3 of the 4 people to be removed did so, the fourth didn't comply with lawful order from the police officer and you saw the result. The aircraft isn't a public place, if those responsible and with the authority to remove the pax did so properly, then it's incumbent upon the pax to leave. The good Dr needs to remember he also has responsibilities as well.

Hems

Why would he get anything besides a refund? He didn't comply with a requirement to leave the aircraft from airline officials , and did the same to police. I have no idea if UA or the police have bigger plans for him, but covering his 3rd point of contact should be his concern, he's the only one who did anything wrong.

[hitchens97]

Yes, sometimes it happens, but it doesn't usually take too much ingenuity to avoid getting into this awful situation.
Because the airlines policy was to overbook. It appears here that the seats were needed for operational reasons. If you don't get enough volunteers you have to remove people who don't want to be removed. There are varying degrees of that, and in the worst case it might be necessary to deplane everybody and start again. Far better (and likely quicker in the circumstances) than ending up in this mess.

Again, I don't understand, you just keep raising the price until you get volunteers. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds. Ring your call button if I have any takers at $2000, $3000, etc.?

The only reason I can think of is United it too tight to do that.

[Local Variation]

Never let the facts get in the way of customer perception.

[HEMS driver]

Hems

Why would he get anything besides a refund? He didn't comply with a requirement to leave the aircraft from airline officials , and did the same to police. I have no idea if UA or the police have bigger plans for him, but covering his 3rd point of contact should be his concern, he's the only one who did anything wrong.

It has to be - REASONABLE and LAWFUL. The cops can't be agents for the airlines for civil matters. This pax was not disruptive, not drunk, not a threat to security.

Ironically, the Chicago Airport LEOs aren't even trusted with firearms.

Bottom line (https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bull****_detector.gif)

[fox niner]

Maybe Chicago was so disappointing that everyone wanted to leave, no matter what.:E

[Airbubba]

Again, I don't understand, you just keep raising the price until you get volunteers. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds. Ring your call button if I have any takers at $2000, $3000, etc.?


Here's an article published yesterday bragging about how the author made $11,000 by getting bumped off Delta flights a few days ago:

Apr 9, 2017 @ 07:00 AM

Why Delta Air Lines Paid Me $11,000 Not To Fly To Florida This Weekend

Laura Begley Bloom

Over the past week, Delta Air Lines has encountered epic travel delays after unprecedented storms forced the cancellation of thousands of flights.

I travel a lot for my career, and when I’m headed somewhere, I want to get there. As a travel editor, I’ve run stories about people who make a profession out of getting bumped by the airlines. And yet, I’ve always quietly scoffed at travelers who would give up a seat on a flight in exchange for a voucher. Not my thing.

This weekend, my family and I profited from Delta's travel woes — big time. We made $11k. Here's how we did it and why I'm not such a snob about getting bumped any more.

The article is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#7534167a4de1

[davydine]

Bottom line is that it's United's aircraft.

You're kidding right?

It's their aircraft so it'ts ok to assault the customers?

[foxcharliep2]

Certainly very bad publicity for UA and deservedly so. No way to offload legit passengers.
Has hit the news in Germany as well.

[DaveReidUK]

Chicago Police Department statement:

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

Presumably written before they became aware that there are several different videos of the incident circulating on the Net ...

[Bealzebub]

Again, I don't understand, you just keep raising the price until you get volunteers. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds. Ring your call button if I have any takers at $2000, $3000, etc.?

The only reason I can think of is United it too tight to do that.
Yes, all businesses are. There is a limit to the compensation they will offer at this stage of contract failure. Generally this action takes place at the gate before boarding.

don't equate the man being pulled off the plane as a failure of protocol. 3 of the 4 people to be removed did so, the fourth didn't comply with lawful order from the police officer and you saw the result. The aircraft isn't a public place, if those responsible and with the authority to remove the pax did so properly, then it's incumbent upon the pax to leave. The good Dr needs to remember he also has responsibilities as well. No indeed. However it does raise the question why the police were called?

[ExXB]

From reports they got to $800 and a hotel.

CFR 250.5 fixes compensation for denied bording at 400% of the fare, with a maximum of $1350. (Can be less if they get rerouted to arrive within an hour or two)

Perhaps if they fixed it at $10,000, (not a percentage of the fare) there would never be another denied boarding.

[hitchens97]

Yes, all businesses are. There is a limit to the compensation they will offer at this stage of contract failure. Generally this action takes place at the gate before boarding.

FWIW - passengers are saying they offered $800, and when no takers, said an algorithm had determined 4 passengers.

In other words they were cheap gits.

[c52]

So it's important to the police what part of the world a person looks as if they come from?

[Geosync]

Being in aviation claims of all sorts including pax liability, UA(well, their insurance company)is going to get crushed on this one. Attorneys are probably camping in front of his house now since the video is viral, and they see an innocent physician being man-handled like a sack of rice, blood on his face. Oh an American jury would tee-off on United if it ever made it to court, multiple of eye witnesses to take the stand for the plaintiff, so UA will throw big money at this one to make it go away.

[ExXB]

What has race got to do with it? He is a paying passenger. And he was NOT wearing leggings!

[ShyTorque]

All I can say, after 40 years in the professional aviation business, is that I'm appalled by these UA thugs.
The man bought a ticket, paid for up front. As far as I can see, it's a legally binding contract. He saw his need to be on that particular flight as greater than that of the airline staff, who could have used other means. For him to be assaulted in that way was totally uncalled for.

United Airlines? They can stuff it.

[Piper_Driver]

It was a short flight. For the amount of money they were going to have to offer to the offloaded PAX why wouldn't the airline just charter a small jet and move the crew that way?

[SLF3]

What's the significance of him being Asian, 69 and male?

If he was white, female and 25 would that make a difference?

'How was work, honey?'

'Same old same old: just beat the crap out of some old foreign guy who wanted to go to work.'

[ExGrunt]

Don't equate the man being pulled off the plane as a failure of protocol. 3 of the 4 people to be removed did so, the fourth didn't comply with lawful order from the police officer and you saw the result. The aircraft isn't a public place, if those responsible and with the authority to remove the pax did so properly, then it's incumbent upon the pax to leave.


Looking at what we know at the moment, the jury is still out on a number of assumptions you have made. For instance the Department of Transport rules say:


DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't.


Equally:
DOT rules require airlines to seek out people who are willing to give up their seats for compensation before bumping anyone involuntarily. Here's how this works. At the check-in or boarding area, airline employees will look for volunteers when it appears that the flight has been oversold.


What marks this case out is that the pax was already on the plane and had a seat. So he was being forceably removed to accommodate someone else.
UA is going to have to provide some really strong reasons, in accordance with the policy, the DoT mandatorily requires, to justify their action.


We all wait with baited breath to hear their justification.

[hitchens97]

From reports they got to $800 and a hotel.

CFR 250.5 fixes compensation for denied bording at 400% of the fare, with a maximum of $1350. (Can be less if they get rerouted to arrive within an hour or two)

Perhaps if they fixed it at $10,000, (not a percentage of the fare) there would never be another denied boarding.

Yup, let's be clear what happened. United made a simple financial trade off that they could do under the law, rather than raise the price to a point where there would be takers.

[West Coast]

indeed. However it does raise the question why the police were called?

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

[West Coast]

all wait with baited breath to hear their justification.

It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.

[Cows getting bigger]

But they invited him onto their 'property' in the first place.

It would be interesting to see if airline such as UA were regularly off-loading passengers.

West Coast - clearly it is business. Wiki Gerald Ratner. :)

[HEMS driver]

It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.

Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.

[Bealzebub]

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

Yes. I can envisage a sensible solution where you do just that and look for another solution. Sometimes the "red mist" or " I must show you who is the boss" is provoked to the forefront and the result deteriorates into something like this. There are times when you lose the battle to win the war. In a customer focused business this often happens.

[West Coast]

onto their 'property' in the first place.

That has zero to do with this situation. The company made a business decision, sucks for the pax, sucks from a PR perspective, but it isn't a matter that what happened was wrong. The only one in the wrong was the pax.

Name one thing from a legality perspective UA did wrong.

[gearlever]

Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.

That would be the total melt-down for UA PR.

[ExGrunt]

It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.
Well, lets see. For an airline to have any business at all pax must be willing to pay fares.
If an airline send a message that us fare paying passengers are just scum to be beaten up for their corporate convenience then that makes our fare buying decisions easy when considering where to spend our money.

[West Coast]

Yes. I can envisage a sensible solution where you do just that and look for another solution. Sometimes the "red mist" or " I must show you who is the boss" is provoked to the forefront and the result deteriorates into something like this. There are times when you lose the battle to win the war. In a customer focused business this often happens.

You're mixing elements. This is about legality. UA will take its lumps from a PR pov, what they did from outward appearance isn't a legality one. The pax is the one who should be worrying about that, not UA.

[ShyTorque]

West Coast, please be so kind as mention which airline you work for.

[Piltdown Man]

Hitchens has it spot on. But PR boo-boos are UA's standard fare. This organisation are probably run by gifted people who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. Here is another classic (http://www.davecarrollmusic.com/songwriting/united-breaks-guitars/). They fail to realise that it is cheaper to cough up what appears large sums of cash on the day rather than exorbitant amounts later on. This will only cost a few million. If the powers that be took their hands out of their trousers and considered real life they might save themselves millions in the long run. Serves them right.

[Airbubba]

This 'doctor' doesn't appear to be mentally stable as he races down the aisle after reboarding the plane and chants 'I have to go home, I have to go home':

https://twitter.com/Tyler_Bridges/status/851228695360663552

[Basil]

Well, I'm ex Army, RAF and airline captain with a couple of police officers in my extended family and, if as reported, this was a disgraceful assault on a legitimate passenger who had legally boarded the aircraft and was not behaving in a disruptive manner.
I do wish I was in his legal shoes in the USA right now :E

[ShyTorque]

Airbubba, I would imagine that being smacked in the mouth and dragged off an aircraft by thugs would upset many people.

[Bealzebub]

This is about legalityonly within the appropriate forum. In the wider world it involves a great deal more. In a customer focused business environment it is a potential disaster.

[West Coast]

Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.

If you're hanging your assumptions on that, I predict you'll be disappointed. I've displaced pax many times as a DH crew member. I've been commuting for 17 of my 19 years in the airlines (not UA) have never once been accommodated over a paying pax when not on company assignment. Not once. The thought of it happening to cover 4 Pax is ludicrious. The contract airline has aircraft that are crewed by 4, so 4 pax being removed is consistent with a DH assignment. If you were airline, you'd know how improbable your conspiracy theory is. First, there's no love lost between gate agents and crews and second, the agent would be the one to have to deal with 4 denied boarding school and have to justify it down line during audits.

You can cling to the idea or accept that your idea isn't a starter.

[czarnajama]

Chicago Police Department statement:

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

Presumably written before they became aware that there are several different videos of the incident circulating on the Net ...

I have watched several of the videos, and to me it seems the police statement is accurate. The way the passenger's head hit the armrest was truly shocking, and his behaviour later pacing up and down the rear aisle suggests he was far from himself. His behaviour before being thrown into the aisle also does not suggest a person who was well to begin with. We have no confirmation of his identity and whether his claims were true. Caution is indicated toward this "viral" story.

There is an important principle involved here, namely that passengers and crew on an aircraft or ship must obey orders from the Captain (or his/her delegates), subject to laws, regulations and CRM principles. The passenger clearly did not obey a lawful order consistent with the contract terms of his ticket.

I expect he will be convicted, fined and placed on the no-fly list, otherwise passenger defiance and uncontrolled auctions for over-booking compensation will occur. That said, the airline acted very obtusely, and has created for itself a PR catastrophe. It's time for some re-regulation in favour of passenger and crew rights.

[Jet Jockey A4]

1- That person seems like someone that is totally confused, probably by the way he was treated.

2- How the he!! did he get back into the aircraft?

3- How come the police statement says he was taken to the hospital to have his injuries looked at?

[West Coast]

ST

Why? I don't work for UA if that helps. There's a great deal of misunderstanding on this thread how airlines work, I'm simply trying to help folks along. Point out one thing, just one thing I've said that isn't spot on.

[Piltdown Man]

This 'doctor' doesn't appear to be mentally stable as he races down the aisle after reboarding the plane and chants 'I have to go home, I have to go home':


Do two wrongs make a right? Barking mad, stress or plain bonkers? I sense a slight reduction in compo...

[Gauges and Dials]

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.

Rewarded for what behavior? Buying a ticket, checking in, boarding when your row is called, and sitting quietly in your seat?

Because that appears to be what this passenger did, before UA started with the abuse.

[Taildragger67]

It's hit Australia:
Sydney Morning Herald: Man dragged off overbooked United flight by police as fellow passengers look on in horror (http://www.smh.com.au/world/man-dragged-off-overbooked-united-flight-by-police-as-fellow-passengers-look-on-in-horror-20170410-gvi67o.html)

[HEMS driver]

If you're hanging your assumptions on that, I predict you'll be disappointed. I've displaced pax many times as a DH crew member. I've been commuting for 17 of my 19 years in the airlines (not UA) have never once been accommodated over a paying pax when not on company assignment. Not once. The thought of it happening to cover 4 Pax is ludicrious. The contract airline has aircraft that are crewed by 4, so 4 pax being removed is consistent with a DH assignment. If you were airline, you'd know how improbable your conspiracy theory is. First, there's no love lost between gate agents and crews and second, the agent would be the one to have to deal with 4 denied boarding school and have to justify it down line during audits.

You can cling to the idea or accept that your idea isn't a starter.

Leave it to the left coast to raise the "conspiracy theory" flag. :rolleyes:

I am a retired air carrier captain, and I understand that the relationship between gate agents and flight crew varies. What still remains is what was communicated to police by the lead F/A in terms of why the police should physically remove a pax.

[HEMS driver]

1- That person seems like someone that is totally confused, probably by the way he was treated.

2- How the he!! did he get back into the aircraft?

3- How come the police statement says he was taken to the hospital to have his injuries looked at?

Could it be that this was a different flight/airplane? :confused:

[West Coast]

Then you should know as a retired airline captain that anyone can be removed. If the pax refused to leave, then he would be removed.

[Gauges and Dials]

If you don't get enough volunteers you have to remove people who don't want to be removed.

How is it possible that you don't get enough volunteers, unless you're lowballing the compensation?

[grizzled]

West Coast,

Your posts neatly summarize what is so problematic with the concept of "acceptable behavior" in the USA today. For police, and perhaps other agents of government, it means violence is an accepted and even expected response to a citizen exercising his / her rights. This person wasn't simply on the premises of the business, he paid for that very specific right at the specific time and was then provided a specific seat -- in return for the money he paid. To suggest that any action by the carrier to rescind that agreement is lawful simply because it's their property is incorrect. Imagine if you will a World Series baseball game, or perhaps a football championship game, where you are told to get out of your seat and out of the stadium because "we sold too many tickets". According to your reasoning, the people involved should simply say "OK, I'll go." You are wrong to suggest that a business that has charged for a service has unfettered rights to use whatever method or tactic available - including police -- to resolve a problem that is entirely of their own making.

More importantly, for you to suggest that quiet acquiescence is the proper response to unfair action by authorities shows how far the USA has drifted from its core founding principles. I wonder what the Founding Fathers, or the folks in Boston Harbor in 1773, would think. Perhaps you should find a quiet spot and read some Thoreau...

[HEMS driver]

Then you should know as a retired airline captain that anyone can be removed. If the pax refused to leave, then he would be removed.

Full disclosure: I didn't say "airline," I said "air carrier," i.e. not 121. The removal has to be lawful. The cabin crew and/or gate agent have to be honest with the police.

Bottom line: just because it is legal, doesn't make it right. UAL doesn't get it.

[gearlever]

West Coast,

Your posts neatly summarize what is so problematic with the concept of "acceptable behavior" in the USA today. For police, and perhaps other agents of government, it means violence is an accepted and even expected response to a citizen exercising his / her rights. This person wasn't simply on the premises of the business, he paid for that very specific right at the specific time and was then provided a specific seat -- in return for the money he paid. To suggest that any action by the carrier to rescind that agreement is lawful simply because it's their property is incorrect. Imagine if you will a World Series baseball game, or perhaps a football championship game, where you are told to get out of your seat and out of the stadium because "we sold too many tickets". According to your reasoning, the people involved should simply say "OK, I'll go." You are wrong to suggest that a business that has charged for a service has unfettered rights to use whatever method or tactic available - including police -- to resolve a problem that is entirely of their own making.

More importantly, for you to suggest that quiet acquiescence is the proper response to unfair action by authorities shows how far the USA has drifted from its core founding principles. I wonder what the Founding Fathers, or the folks in Boston Harbor in 1773, would think. Perhaps you should find a quiet spot and read some Thoreau...

Spot on:ok:

[Jet Jockey A4]

Could it be that this was a different flight/airplane? :confused:

No same aircraft but 10 minutes later!

Then they removed him in a stretcher!

Apparently some adults travelling with children were so disgusted they got off the plane saying the children had seen enough abuse for a day.

[Bealzebub]

How is it possible that you don't get enough volunteers, unless you're lowballing the compensation?

Because common sense would tell you that there would be a limit to such offers and reaching that limit doesn't necessarily corelate to achieving the required result.

[lomapaseo]

When does an airline captain take control of the plane in deciding who stays aboard and who leaves?

Is it when he enters the boarding door ?

When he accepts the manifest?

When the boarding door is closed ?

When he starts his engines?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Totally shocked by this. UA are off my list of airlines to use, oh, and so is the one that West Coast works for. I bet there are a fair few who were on that flight that will think again before booking UA (or co-carriers) let alone those globally seeing this thuggery.

A fare paying passenger treated in that manner just because Ops screwed up and his name was selected in a manner more suited to dystopian world selecting who will survive or not.

[Bealzebub]

When does an airline captain take control of the plane in deciding who stays aboard and who leaves?

Is it when he enters the boarding door ?

When he accepts the manifest?

When the boarding door is closed ?

When he starts his engines?

The captain is rarely called upon to make that decision. If he or she is, it may be be before they even leave the crew room. In specific circumstances it could be in all of your examples and more besides. I have deplaned or refused to accept passengers before boarding (in the case of accompanied deportees) and prior to boarding, prior to taxi, prior to take off, diversion in flight, prior to landing, and after landing. I cannot recall the police ever being called to remove an overbooked passenger. There is always a solution such is the "art of the deal."

[HEMS driver]

This is why pax are told to turn off their electronic devices - so they can't take videos of pax abuse. :E

[neilki]

meanwhile on APC
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/101092-united-pax-forcibly-removed-flight.html

[HEMS driver]

According to Fox News, Chicago Airport Police have announced that the officer who dragged the pax has been suspended for not following their procedures. Do ya think?

[truckflyer]

UA have acted disgraceful in this incident.

The passenger had paid for his seat for this flight. That OPS had to accommodate DH crew, was not the fault of the passengers.

Ultimately it is the Captain who is responsible to call the Airport Police to the aircraft. The Captain is the one responsible for all actions taken on his aircraft.

And I would expect the Captain to at least be called in for tea and biscuits.

Anybody who can condone the behaviour of the police, and how and more importantly why he was removed, need their heads examined. You clearly do not live and operate in a customer orientated world, or you clearly don't care about how your customers are treated.

The lawyers will have a field day with UA, and they will unfortunately probably reach a settlement outside court.

The passenger has paid for the seat for this specific flight, imagine you have a hotel room for one night, you have paid for this room for this specific night. So you have gone into the hotel room and gone to sleep in the bed, than shortly after the police enters your room and removes you for no other reason than to accommodate a staff they have working there.
This would not be right, neither legally or morally.

You have paid the money for the seat, and as long as you have not breached any of your terms and conditions, you have the right to quiet enjoyment of what you have paid for.

Any Captain taking this decision, should in my opinion be seriously reprimanded for allowing this situation to happen, including OPS management who allowed this to happen.

You have damaged the reputation of your employer, will cost them millions in compensation and bad PR. These are one of those Non-Tech situations, that you do not get trained for in the Sim, where you need to show why you deserve to earn a 6 figure salary.

[SalNichols]

When you purchase a ticket, you're entering into a contract with the airline for SAFE carriage from point A to point B. Clearly the compensation package for breaking that contract at the convenience of the carrier needs to be increased. An $800 travel voucher would hardly compensate a physician for a day of lost revenue and angry patients. Likewise, blowing the schedule of a surgeon would not only hose him, but an entire OR schedule. The compensation doesn't have to be punitive, but it should be equitable, and it should be in cash, not in a voucher that might decrease in value as fares fluctuate. While I would probably have taken the $800 and crappy OHR hotel, this gentleman clearly had someplace to be. There had to be a better option than beating the hell out of him. If I were AA, my next ad campaign would feature the following: "At American, if we overbook we'll fatten your wallet, NOT your lip."

[wiggy]

Ultimately it is the Captain who is responsible to call the Airport Police to the aircraft. The Captain is the one responsible for all actions taken on his aircraft....And I would expect the Captain to at least be called in for tea and biscuits..

Ummm.... Sorry but whilst some like to think so it is not that simple. In the air, yes, but on the ground, with the doors open, with law enforcement on the scene of an incident it is nowhere near as clear cut.

[Gauges and Dials]

Because common sense would tell you that there would be a limit to such offers and reaching that limit doesn't necessarily corelate to achieving the required result.

The "required result" is to operate airline that makes a profit and generates value for its shareholders. I'm not a PR expert, but I suspect the cost of this particular fracas, in terms of reputational damage, is in the millions or tens of millions. Offering $2,000 would have got people off the plane. Do the math.

It strikes me that the commonsense limit would be, at the point that making the offer for volunteers costs more than involuntarily bumping a passenger would cost.

And even if you don't wind up with an altercation, involuntarily bumping a passenger has to be at least $5,000 in reputational damage; unless your computer algorithm succceds in finding the passenger who's unlikely ever to fly your airline again, anyhow.

[grizzled]

United will suffer in so many ways from this. Including, I'm sure, at the hands of the late night comedy shows in the USA tonight. Perhaps they'll inherit Air Canada's slogan from a few years back: "We're not happy 'til you're not happy!"

[9 lives]

Perhaps what is needed is a rule change much further back in the process. The poor fellow who was bumped and bruised had paid for, and was allocated a seat. Short of his being in violation of a cabin safety regulation, he was entitled to ride in the seat for which he had paid. The airline has no right to presume that they can repurpose that seat, or otherwise overbook the flight.

If a passenger, who has paid for a seat fails to board, the seat should fly empty, and the non flier charged full price for it. The airline has no right to overbook on the chance that they might sell some seats twice! Overbooking should be outlawed. If, in the moments before gate close, the paying passenger has not shown up, them perhaps the airline can double dip, and sell to the seat to standby passenger, who had not confirmed seat anyway.

I agree, an $800 travel voucher would not get my attention at all, my day is worth much more to me than that. And that travel voucher.... puts you into a low cost seat next time, from which you can be bumped!

My money is good, the seat it bought should be too!

If I were AA, my next ad campaign would feature the following: "At American, if we overbook we'll fatten your wallet, NOT your lip." :ok:

[Gauges and Dials]

otherwise uncontrolled auctions for over-booking compensation will occur

Is that MBA-speak for "the free market will operate, and the airline will be forced to pay market rate to buy out passengers being denied boarding?"

Heaven forfend!

[Eutychus]

Is that MBA-speak for "the free market will operate, and the airline will be forced to pay market rate to buy out passengers being denied boarding?"

Heaven forfend!

Apparently one can virtually make a living (https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#21bb59134de1) out of playing this game (judiciously).

[hitchens97]

Is that MBA-speak for "the free market will operate, and the airline will be forced to pay market rate to buy out passengers being denied boarding?"

Heaven forfend!

I know right? It also has the added benefit that the airline might properly understand the costs of their operational mistakes as opposed to it being $800.

[Jet Jockey A4]

According to Fox News, Chicago Airport Police have announced that the officer who dragged the pax has been suspended for not following their procedures. Do ya think?

From CBS news...

Chicago Aviation Officer Placed On Leave After Dragging Man Off Plane « CBS Chicago (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/chicago-aviation-officer-placed-on-leave-after-dragging-man-off-plane/)

[DaveReidUK]

The incident has just made the 10 pm BBC News, complete with a clip from United's "Fly the Friendly Skies" commercial.

[Airbubba]

Another disturbing video clip has emerged with the bloodied man chanting 'just kill me' :(:

https://twitter.com/kaylyn_davis/status/851480498186485760/video/1

And a few more seconds of the 'I have to go home' repetitions:

https://twitter.com/kaylyn_davis/status/851471574385307648

[hitchens97]

The ironic thing is that my guess is if they'd upped the offer to $2K they would have got the 4 volunteers, and everyone is happy. United has to pay an extra $5k, but it's a pittance to what this has cost them.

[truckflyer]

"wiggy"

Regarding Captains responsibility. In this case it was not about an unruly passenger. Captain would have had to give the go ahead to the dispatcher to call the police. A very poor decision indeed, and misuse of brute force.

The passenger could only have been given the order to remove the passenger by the Captain, Cabin Crew would have had to identify the passenger to the police, as the passenger was again as mentioned not an unruly passenger.

Of course OPS might have contacted the police, but in the end whatever happens inside the aircraft, either doors open or close, is the Captains responsibility.

The passenger did not sit in the wrong seat, not boarded by mistake, was not making any nuisance or being a threat that would identify him, unless the Cabin Crew Manager had identified him, and as far as I know, the Captain still outranks the Cabin Crew Manager.

If there are drunk passengers during boarding, the normal procedure in most companies I know of, is that the Captain is informed, and he ultimately takes the decision if the passenger should be removed and if the police is required.
I know of NO airline who does it differently, either in the USA or rest of the world.
This is the reason the Captain is payed a 6 figure amount, because he is the Top Manager on the aircraft.

This comment from another forum sums it up nicely:

"There's NOT a rule for removing paying passengers who have boarded the aircraft and are seated in their reserved, assigned seats and replacing them with airline employees.

Without comment on whether compensation for denied boarding is flawed or not, denied boarding is not the issue. The passenger was permitted to board, and was subsequently removed. While the airline may have been well within its rights to deny him boarding (we don't know if he met the criteria according to their boarding priority list, but let's assume he did), they allowed him to board. According to the Contract of Carriage Document, he should not have been removed involuntarily."

[mik_64]

So its an accepted practice to overbook. That is sell a product you have no intention of supplying.

Oh its OK because its in the very small print.

[h3dxb]

Personally, I feel sorry about the downfall of our industry. I hope this guy can sue them to hell.

This is not where we stand for in aviation and even after 30 years in industries I never expected.

Disgusting, shame on you UA

[Airbubba]

"wiggy"

Regarding Captains responsibility. In this case it was not about an unruly passenger. Captain would have had to give the go ahead to the dispatcher to call the police. A very poor decision indeed, and misuse of brute force.

The captain would give the go ahead to the dispatcher to call the police?

I'm not rightly sure that's how it works on a Republic RJ at the gate at ORD. ;)

[West Coast]

Grizzled

You're 100% wrong. Airlines can remove pax from planes for doing absolutely nothing wrong, when the only reason is the seat is needed. Prove me wrong with chapter and verse then I'll show where you're wrong.

[DaveReidUK]

Why don't you just show the OP where they are wrong, anyway ?

United's Conditions of Carriage are freely available on the Net. To save space, perhaps you could just quote the part that applies in this instance ?

[Jet II]

This 'doctor' doesn't appear to be mentally stable as he races down the aisle after reboarding the plane and chants 'I have to go home, I have to go home':

https://twitter.com/Tyler_Bridges/status/851228695360663552

Well considering he had just been assaulted and knocked out I doubt that anyone, including you, would have been totally stable after that.

[West Coast]

Dave
Or you could do your own research.

H97

Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?

Jet

He was knocked out now?

[DaveReidUK]

Dave
Or you could do your own research.

So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

Hmmm.

[West Coast]

Waiting for those who've asserted that what happened was illegal, what UA did was wrong and that they are ripe for a lawsuit to back their claim.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?
So this is going to cost them millions, and you're saying there was someone who prevented them from solving the problem orders of magnitude cheaper? - then maybe that someone should be forking out the millions?


Go on, tell us, who was it?

[Jet II]

Dave
Or you could do your own research.

H97

Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?

Jet

He was knocked out now?

Well he was slammed into the armrest and he certainly didn't look conscious when he was dragged off the aircraft.


T-1kHaEdFtI

[Chesty Morgan]

So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

Hmmm.

SOP for dear old Westy...

[Airbubba]

Well considering he had just been assaulted and knocked out I doubt that anyone, including you, would have been totally stable after that.

Agreed, but if you've ever dealt with a friend or family member who is having a manic episode, sometimes they can be very combative when you are trying to help them. Might not be the case here but I would not be in such a rush to pass judgement on the handling of this incident until more is known.

[Journey Man]

Dave
Or you could do your own research.

This doesn't fit "Denied Boarding", as he was boarded. From United's terms, I can't see which of the below clauses the passenger fell foul of?

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.

Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.

Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.

Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.

Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.

Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed
Gosh, Thought Police stuff! - you can the thrown off just for thinking something. Maybe they decided the pax who was assaulted and thrown off was only complying with the no-voice-calls rule unwillingly, that would do it.

[Jet II]

Agreed, but if you've ever dealt with a friend or family member who is having a manic episode, sometimes they can be very combative when you are trying to help them. Might not be the case here but I would not be in such a rush to pass judgement on the handling of this incident until more is known.

Fair point - but I would just point out that he was a perfect pax up until they chucked him off the aircraft. After all he wasn't thrown off because he was disruptive - it was because the 'computer' picked his name out at random.

[Katamarino]

Passengers who ... may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;

This is my favourite. If you might be capable of resisting, you can't fly. What the hell is that meant to mean?

[Local Variation]

Possibly this one.

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

[PAXboy]

The United staff had forgotten the lesson about breaking guitars (2008) despite saying at the time that they wanted to learn from it. But, for compensation, you can be sure that there are limits the staff can go to and, probably, those limits have always worked. Going higher needs phone calls to those nowhere near the problem who will, probably, tell them to stick to the rules. The staff know this.

To understand the lack of authority that agents and crew have, read 'From Worst To First' by Gordon Bethune and how he turned Continental around. One of the key problems in their customer 'service' was that the staff were tied down by rules set by managers who did not have to implement them, overseen by accountants who could not see the big picture and did not understand 'service'.

Guess who bought Continental ...? :hmm:

[West Coast]

Kat

Prisoners are routinely carried escorted with one or two LEOs depending on level of risk.Same with witnesses, runaways, etc. They're a risk to be considered.

[rotornut]

I was right. It's gone mainstream news all over the world: Indian Express, South China Morning Post, to name a few. I guess maybe a few UA people might be up fairly late this evening.

[mickjoebill]

If that was the only way of solving a problem, something is seriously, seriously wrong with the industry.

It reflects the way many authorities in the USA deal with the public on the street.

All United had to do was to keep doubling the compensation until someone said yes?

[ExSp33db1rd]

That guy sure gets the drama queen award

Why, he was - apparently ? - just sat there minding his own business when they ordered him off. I would not have been happy, either.

Mind you - if they'd offered enough cash to re-book ...... !

[HEMS driver]

United's Contract of Carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-us/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25)

It talks about "denying boarding," but this pax had already boarded.

[TampaSLF]

West Coast,
Your posts neatly summarize what is so problematic with the concept of "acceptable behavior" in the USA today. For police, and perhaps other agents of government, it means violence is an accepted and even expected response to a citizen exercising his / her rights...
More importantly, for you to suggest that quiet acquiescence is the proper response to unfair action by authorities shows how far the USA has drifted from its core founding principles. I wonder what the Founding Fathers, or the folks in Boston Harbor in 1773, would think. Perhaps you should find a quiet spot and read some Thoreau...
Agreed: it is a heartbreaking phenomena where fear filled Americans believe that compliance to maintain order is to be patriotic. In short, my country has gone :mad: insane. Guys like Jefferson and Patrick Henry would be waterboarded and in some Federal prison...
ON TOPIC: I fly. Lots. Not on UA anymore. I resisted them, now I LOATH them. I say "no" to police state tactics used by corporations, and I say it with my $$.
Much respects to all you pro drivers and crew supporting the passengers right to not be battered. :)
Back to lurking for another 4 years or so.

[portmanteau]

When you are in a hole, stop digging. The moment ground staff found out that no one wanted to give up their seat, the plan to replace four paying pax with company men should have been ditched. No ifs or buts.
United Breaks People is the next hit song.

[Journey Man]

Possibly this one.

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

Sat in his seat? Surely everyone sat in their seats should be removed? If you mean interfering with dead heading company employees... they aren't members of that flight's crew.

[Airbubba]

Fair point - but I would just point out that he was a perfect pax up until they chucked him off the aircraft.

According to the police report:

At approximately 6:00 p.m., a 69-year-old male Asian airline passenger become irate after he was asked to disembark from a flight that was oversold. The passenger in question began yelling to voice his displeasure at which point Aviation Police were summoned.

Did he just pitch a fit at the wrong time and place and the police overreacted? Or did his behavior become increasingly bizarre signaling an episode of some mental disorder?

[Local Variation]

Journey Man,

If said passenger fell foul of the random tombolla and refused to leave as requested by crew, then he could potentially be non-compliant on the clause 'failing to comply with the duties of the members of the flight crew'

[West Coast]

Port

There's a good chance the DH crew was onboard to head to assignments. Missing that flight potentially meant cancelling subsequent flights for significant numbers of pax. Moving crew around in the cabin is a part of airline life.

[PAXboy]

Airbubba Or did his behavior become increasingly bizarre signaling an episode of some mental disorder?We have no means of knowing what pressures of work and family this man was under. We cannot begin to judge him.

United have a proven track record in customer service. :eek:

[HEMS driver]

Yes they do, and it's not good. :E

[JumpJumpJump]

I imagine that this is going to be quite a mess to sort out....

First, regarding whether or not United offloaded the passenger within the remit of their Ts and Cs. Second if the Responsibility for the police being called will fall at the customer services/ complaint handling of United or Republic (who operated the flight) and thirdly, and most difficult if the physical injuries, and moral damage was caused by United or the Police service, I think that there is going to be a hell of a lot of finger pointing and posturing before any setlement is made. I also wonder if United/Republic/both will take the Police service to court for damages over this incident, as ultimately, the responsibility for the passengers injuries must lay at the feet of the officers on the aircraft.

I have no idea about my next question, as this resulted in the injury of a passenger onboard a US reg aircraft, will the NTSB get involved and make a report on the incident? or do they only care when the engines are running?

[DaveReidUK]

Dave
Or you could do your own research.So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

I'll take that as a "no", then ... :ugh:

[John Marsh]

HEMS driver:

This pax was not disruptive, not drunk, not a threat to security....but strictly speaking, he was a potential threat to safety. In this mess created by UA, he refused to vacate a seat needed by someone else. No takeoff without all being seated.

Was this explained to him?

grizzled:

United will suffer in so many ways from this. Including, I'm sure, at the hands of the late night comedy shows in the USA tonight.Correct! It's an absolute gift.

[ZFT]

I'm not sure what I find more bizarre, the actions of these UAL representatives or posters trying to justify their actions! 3 burly men against a 69 year old doctor!

[JumpJumpJump]

United didn't physically manhandle the customer and most likely did not instruct the officers to use violence...... or do you think they were like the M in the James Bond films.... "Make it look like an accident 007"?

[tubby linton]

United's contract of carriage. It is only a mere 36876 words . Perhaps somebody can find a clause which alllows an airline to behave like this.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

[DaveReidUK]

I have no idea about my next question, as this resulted in the injury of a passenger onboard a US reg aircraft, will the NTSB get involved and make a report on the incident? or do they only care when the engines are running?

ICAO Annex 13 applies from the time that anyone boards an aircraft with the intention of flight.

But it specifically excludes injuries to those on board that have been inflicted by other persons.

[newfoundglory]

This is just completely crazy to me.

UA are in the news apologizing for the 'overbook situation'. What overbook situation?

It sounds like there was a need between post-boarding and pre-departure to suddenly create 4 seats for staff on STANDBY.

That is not an overbook situation.

[Journey Man]

Waas this explained to him?


I think they only got as far as RNAV 5 before he was hauled off...

[tonyhap]

Is it really UA's fault? Is it not the fault of the police persons who got excessively rough and physical? Why did their training not kick in and give them second thoughts on using strong arm tactics? Why did those police persons not suggest to the CC that they were not prepared to use physical force of that degree? And suggest to the CC that a more civilised solution should be found?

[grizzled]

newfoundglory

I was just thinking the same thing: The CEO is apologizing for the wrong thing. It's a function of the power and speed of social media today that companies fall behind so quickly (in terms of PR ramifications) and then simply cannot overcome the tsunami.

Having said that, I'm sure the Chief Spin Docs at UA are with the CEO right now, trying to compose some "press releases" (which today don't involve the "press" at all) and come up with a damage control strategy, which is also nearly impossible today due to the internet.

The younger folks on here should look up "Marshall McLuhan"...

[HEMS driver]

Based on UAL's Contract of Carriage, they violated their own rules. This flight wasn't "OVERSOLD," because the four employees were NON-REV. They didn't buy a ticket, thus they weren't "sold" anything!

Oh, those pesky little rules.

Plus, as I mentioned above, the removed pax had already boarded, so by definition his boarding couldn't be denied, as it already took place.

Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation

Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:...

[grizzled]

Is it really UA's fault? Is it not the fault of the police persons who got excessively rough and physical? Why did their training not kick in and give them second thoughts on using strong arm tactics? Why did those police persons not suggest to the CC that they were not prepared to use physical force of that degree? And suggest to the CC that a more civilised solution should be found?

Culture, tonyhap, culture. That response IS what their training tells them to do. Your comment about "civilised" response strikes a chord. Read some of the literature about differing police response tactics around the world. Japan v/s the USA is a good start.

[PAXboy]

tonyhap Why did their training not kick in and give them second thoughts on using strong arm tactics?Looking at this from across the Eastern side of the Pond, American Police training does not seem to include 'second thoughts' or 'shall we just step back a moment' thoughts. :hmm:

[Jet Jockey A4]

Based on UAL's Contract of Carriage, they violated their own rules. This flight wasn't "OVERSOLD," because the four employees were NON-REV. They didn't buy a ticket, thus they weren't "sold" anything!

Oh, those pesky little rules.

Plus, as I mentioned above, the removed pax had already boarded, so by definition his boarding couldn't be denied, as it already took place.


I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Also do we know if any of the deadheading crews were pilots or were they just flight attendants?

On another forum a United pilot said that in their clause they do have the right to bump a passenger if they need to get somewhere to work but he wasn’t so sure flight attendants had the same clause.

[West Coast]

Hems

They weren't non reving, thats when you hope there's open seats to Hawaii for you and your family. They were DH'ing on business. There are differences.

[Photonic]

Is it really UA's fault? Is it not the fault of the police persons who got excessively rough and physical? Why did their training not kick in and give them second thoughts on using strong arm tactics? Why did those police persons not suggest to the CC that they were not prepared to use physical force of that degree? And suggest to the CC that a more civilised solution should be found?

It was UA's fault for failing to raise the financial incentive for "volunteering to deboard" enough to manage the situation peaceably, and indeed voluntarily by the pax.

They allowed it to progress past that point, to forcible removal of a passenger selected at random who didn't want to volunteer, presumably because the compensation wasn't high enough to offset his personal/professional needs for taking that flight. This led to what anyone outside the airline industry will see as unprovoked physical assault on a paying passenger. The fact that nobody else was taking the $800 offer didn't give the airlines permission to start forcibly removing people by means of proxy (the airport police).

Whatever you think of that logic, or the various regs involved, it's how the entire world outside the airline industry is seeing this right now.

I do think it would be helpful to see exactly how the conflict escalated, but at this point it's irrelevant. One or more people at UA made some very bad decisions here.

[Amadis of Gaul]

United will suffer in so many ways from this. Including, I'm sure, at the hands of the late night comedy shows in the USA tonight. Perhaps they'll inherit Air Canada's slogan from a few years back: "We're not happy 'til you're not happy!"

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...

[West Coast]

Absolutely correct

[SalNichols]

United didn't physically manhandle the customer and most likely did not instruct the officers to use violence...... or do you think they were like the M in the James Bond films.... "Make it look like an accident 007"?

Clearly you're not denying that violence occurred?
1) UA wanted his seat, he attempted to force them to honor their contract to fly him home.
2) UA called the CPD to extricate him from the plane against his will.
3) The passenger was beaten and injured in the process.
Any time you call the police, the odds are that someone is going to get f-ed up. It is what they do, because cops are hammers and non cops are nails. Therefore every situation is treated as a "problem/nail"...in the US at least. Once the CPD was called, the outcome was predictable. If the passenger had been a young black man, the outcome would have been much worse. This situation should have been resolved before anyone was boarded.

[grizzled]

West Coast

With respect... United's own collective agreements refer to "deadheading" as "non revenue, positive space". So Hems terminology is correct.

[West Coast]

Griz

Positive space and must ride are terms Hems should be familiar with. He claims to be retired airline, in a debate such as this, an airline pilot, a Captain at that would be aware of nuances. His post was absent any, on par with what would be expected from someone familiar with the term but not what it meant to an airline pilot.

Given his claim, I hold him to a higher level of understanding.

[PAXboy]

Certainly Airlines have done much worse things... Amadis of Gaul
In the age of the 24-hour news cycle, I doubt UA will "suffer" much at all. However, in the previous referred to 2008 affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars it is reported (and cited): It was widely reported that within 4 weeks of the video being posted online, United Airlines' stock price fell 10%, costing stockholders about $180 million in value.

[West Coast]

Yah, nothing else happened in 2008 did it?

Among others, the mistaken belief UA was going back into bankruptcy based on an old article. Stocks plunged.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Certainly Amadis of Gaul
However, in the previous referred to 2008 affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars it is reported (and cited):

Correlation = causation? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not a stock market expert...

[SalNichols]

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...

Nope. UA is being called in front the Transportation Committee, as are the CPD cops. Congress didn't like those visuals.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Nope. UA is being called in front the Transportation Committee, as are the CPD cops. Congress didn't like those visuals.

That's not entirely true, is it? Nobody is being called in front of anyone yet, so far only one member of said committee has requested a hearing. Guess we'll see if and when said hearing happens.

[Two's in]

You shouldn't be in a service industry if you don't understand the power of negative publicity. Hopefully some of the GAs and uniformed thugs involved will be exploring new career opportunities soon.

[b1lanc]

Yah, nothing else happened in 2008 did it?

Among others, the mistaken belief UA was going back into bankruptcy based on an old article. Stocks plunged.

And a month ago refusing to board two females because they were wearing leggings? Even Delta tweeted that they were welcome on any their flights.

450K miles on UAL since the 1950s and I'll never fly them again. There if fundamental flaw in UAL's culture since the merger with Continental. Even their coffee is now undrinkable.

[peekay4]

We seem to have already forgotten that this was a Republic Airlines flight, and the incident could have happened as easily on one of Republic's other codeshares with American or Delta.

[West Coast]

Thanks B1. I work for another carrier where I enjoy a pretty decent upper middle income lifestyle. Haven't had to screw over any pax today, but the day is young.

[West Coast]

B1

If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.

This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.

[RadarContactLost]

What west coast said, when flying on a buddy pass you abide by the dress code or you don't fly...

[Photonic]

B1

If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.

This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.

There is this new thing out there called "social media" that you might want to check out.

It has a tendency to override subtleties like this, and companies still have to deal with it. There is no excuse for the PR department of any large corporation failing to understand how this works, or that every phone is now a camera.

[Jet Jockey A4]

A person that was on the flight posted this on social media which explains why the passenger came back onboard the aircraft... Truly unbelievable that the authorities "lost him". This keeps getting better.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9FWFS1UIAA0der.jpg:large

[Jet Jockey A4]

That's not entirely true, is it? Nobody is being called in front of anyone yet, so far only one member of said committee has requested a hearing. Guess we'll see if and when said hearing happens.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is investigating a Monday incident in which a 69-year-old man was forcibly dragged from an overbooked United Airlines plane...


Feds Now Looking Into United Airlines Incident - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/04/10/feds-now-looking-into-united-incident.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl)

[West Coast]

Photo

I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.

[PAXboy]

People may choose to be ignorant but one of the key ideas of 'capitalism' is that it adapts to new markets and how things change. Supposedly ...

But old companies get too big and have too many rules and have no possibility of adapting. Eventually, they fall and die. It's just the 'cycle of life'. :p

[SalNichols]

Photo

I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.

You can beat that to death, but what the public is seeing is two 10 yr olds denied boarding for attire that 85% of women wear every day...What you're flunking is basic public relations messaging...and you're failing in a willful manner. I used to fly on my ex wife's passes, and the dress code was f-ing stupid. I flew first class on biz for my entire career, and the first thing I'd do in the Ambassador Club is change into levis and tennis shoes. Yet to fly in the same seat on a pass I had to be wearing a jacket and tie? It's an airborne bus, not Mar A Lago.

Enough diversion...you really need to re-think the physical abuse of fare paying passengers. There is no way to paint it that makes you look good.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Photo

I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.

From United's carriage contract...

"Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;"

Although I agree on wearing proper clothing, who decides what is proper? Do they have a specific book with descriptions of what is proper and not proper?

I have seen far worst dressed people on airlines than girls wearing leggings.

[Jet Jockey A4]

CEO Blames passenger, calls him disruptive and belligerent.

What an idiot!

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

[West Coast]

Employee manuals discuss non rev dress code and etiquette, not terms of Carriage. The person who sent the Yong ladies traveling (on his or her travel privledges ) erred in letting them do so in leggings.

You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.

[Sam Asama]

you really need to re-think the physical abuse of fare paying passengers. There is no way to paint it that makes you look good.

For United Airlines (and Republic, and every other airline out there): The above comment is a simple and accurate summing up of the issue.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Employee manuals discuss non rev dress code and etiquette, not terms of Carriage. The person who sent the Yong ladies traveling (on his or her travel privledges ) erred in letting them do so in leggings.

You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.

The carriage rule still points out to a proper etiquette for the dress code.

Granted the in-house policy also applies for people travelling on passes but I'll bet you 99% of female travelers that travel on a pass would have travelled that day wearing leggings but unfortunately fell on a pissed off gate agent that wanted to show who was the boss.

[West Coast]

You've no way of knowing any of that wrt to likelihood of making it on.

[truckflyer]

"West Coast" and others - This incident is much more serious than denied boarding due to dress code.

It is appalling for you people defending UA and the police for their actions. On other videos when he is back on board, his injuries are clearly visible.

These passengers was NOT DENIED boarding, they had already taken their seats and boarded, that was it. This was the company OPS who had messed up, and sure they could offer financial offers to get people to leave their seats, but DH does not have any god given right to be given a seat on an aircraft that has been fully booked and the passengers have already boarded.

I have seen DH crew been bumped because flights have been full, or been made to sit on the jump seat in cabin or / and cockpit. But it is unheard of that already boarded passengers is forced of the aircraft.

That some of you can defend the indefensible actions of the UA crew and the police is beyond me. The UA crew would have told police to get the passenger of no matter what.

Any actions performed on the aircraft should be under supervision and with permission of the Commander.

This passenger had until been ordered to remove himself from the aircraft, not said a word against the crew.

Now if someone orders you of a flight in such a situation, how many of you would not get upset and give your piece of mind?

I am sorry the DH Crew had no exceptional priority, this should be clear, and I am pretty sure that in the contract given the passengers, it's not written that DH Crew shall have any priority, furthermore they can not be calculated as over-booked, as they are not paying passengers.

This is a mess up by the OPS department, and if they have managed to get into this situation, that they don't have enough crew at some base, for sure the passengers should not be the once suffering for this. OPS should have found another way to have moved their crew or had some foresight so they did not end in this situation.

However more importantly, the way the passenger was removed, sorry that's a criminal offence, and it seems the passengers injuries happen on the aircraft, as the police was carrying out orders from the Commander to have the innocent passenger removed by force, based on an unknown selection criteria.

Just because you are aircrew, does not make you some special privileged entity, that are more important than others. What an ignorant and arrogant attitude you have "West Coast"
:mad:

[PAXboy]

We seem to have already forgotten that this was a Republic Airlines flight, and the incident could have happened as easily on one of Republic's other codeshares with American or Delta.

That is true but the public only hear United. The media only know United and the Ts&Cs will be United.

[b1lanc]

We seem to have already forgotten that this was a Republic Airlines flight, and the incident could have happened as easily on one of Republic's other codeshares with American or Delta.

What was the livery on the AC?

[West Coast]

Truck

Quite simply, you're wrong. Moving crews is a priority for the airline. 4 pax bumped or 70 plus cancelled pax pissed because a crew isn't in position, that's just for the first flight missed. It ain't pretty but it's the airline life.

I can say with certainty that the agents didn't want this to end this way, and it didn't for the other 3. That the fourth felt he wasn't subject to getting booted and pushed it to the point of refusing the LEOs order to leave under his own power, well, he deserves blame.

[peekay4]

Officer Who Dragged Bloodied Passenger From United Flight Suspended

Chicago airport security officer who helped drag a United Airlines passenger off a plane by his arms, bloodying his lip as horrified passengers protested and recorded the episode on their smartphones Sunday night at O'Hare International Airport, was placed on leave Monday. ...

"The incident ... was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by our Department. The officer has been placed on leave effective today and pending a thorough review of the situation."


More from: https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/united-airlines-drags-passenger-plane-ohare-airport

[Airbubba]

Waas this explained to him?

I think they only got as far as RNAV 5 before he was hauled off...

Glad to see some professional pilot humor still allowed here on PPRuNe. :ok:

Here's the email United CEO Oscar Muñoz sent to the employees this evening:

Dear Team,

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

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

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

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411

. On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.

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

. He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.

. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.

. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.

[truckflyer]

I guess US airlines have less regards for their Pax than in Europe. As I have seen the exact opposite happen, Crews been left behind.

This stinks bad management by the company, if you can't foresee this problem in advance than you should find another job.

UA in this case should have offered more money until they got the seats they needed. You can have a business man missing a million dollar deal because suddenly the airline decides they want his ticket back.

How will cover such consequential loss suffered by passengers how have paid their seat, and have been allowed to board?
As long as they follow the rules, that seat belongs to the passengers, otherwise airlines would not be offering money to get the seats back.

Regardless does not justify to remove an embarked passenger this barbaric way.

[West Coast]

The good doctor choose the method of eviction. There's nothing magical about making it through L1. There's no absolute rights when you're on private property. He could have simply walked off, he made the decision to push to situation as far as he did.

[HEMS driver]

We seem to have already forgotten that this was a Republic Airlines flight, and the incident could have happened as easily on one of Republic's other codeshares with American or Delta.

UAL can't have it both ways, i.e. when things are rosey they take credit, but when things go down the crapper they can't say it wasn't their flight. :=

It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door).

[oleary]

I am a 69 year old male who spent 50 years in aviation, much of it in the cockpit.

I still travel a fair bit for business and pleasure.

NEVER will I fly with United Airlines again.

[Airbubba]

It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door).

Nope, it says 'UNITEDEXPRESS' on the side of N632RW. :=

[lomapaseo]

UAL can't have it both ways, i.e. when things are rosey they take credit, but when things go down the crapper they can't say it wasn't their flight.

It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door).

Regardless of the paint on the aircraft and the fine print over the door, isn't this about the boarding process as handled by a UAL gate crew?

Were not the gate crew decisions made to accommodate a UAL deadheading crew?.

I don't see the plane operating crew in this but perhaps more will come out in a formal investigation.

[oleary]

.... much of it in the cockpit I have one last trip from Canada to Austin, Texas on April 20th.

That will be my last trip to this totally :mad: up country.

[Pera]

At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.

He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum.

[cooperplace]

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.
.

are you serious? this is the pax fault? so it's OK to assault your passengers?

[HEMS driver]

Regardless of the paint on the aircraft and the fine print over the door, isn't this about the boarding process as handled by a UAL gate crew?

Were not the gate crew decisions made to accommodate a UAL deadheading crew?.

I don't see the plane operating crew in this but perhaps more will come out in a formal investigation.

I can't disagree. I was commenting on the previous poster's comments that this was a Republic Flight, not a UAL flight.

[jugofpropwash]

Mapquest lists this as a 5hr 13min drive. If upping the offer to take a later flight didn't get enough volunteers, then the airline could have had a driver drive the employees to their destination - driving wouldn't have taken much longer than the delay. Or they could have offered to drive the displaced passengers, or pay for rental cars. A lot of ways this could have been handled that would have resulted in far less bad publicity.

Then again, it could have been worse. This guy was a doctor. Imagine for a moment that he was a transplant doctor, and was rushing home because a heart had just been found for some child. Organs are only viable for a certain amount of time, and if the doctor was pulled off the flight.....

[ZFT]

At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.

He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum.

Unbelievable

[HEMS driver]

Nope, it says 'UNITEDEXPRESS' on the side of N632RW. :=

Fair enough. United Express is owned by UAL. Note how the "Express" is faded to emphasis "United." The brand is United. OWN IT!

http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2011/5/28/137944.jpg

[SeenItAll]

What are the facts here?

UA Express had a 70 seat plane that they needed to fit 74 people on.
UA tried to get 4 people to give up seats, but $800 to $1000 didn't succeed
Instead of bidding higher, UA decided to use IDB to reduce the load. (Note that in retrospect, I am sure that if UA could do things over, it would decide to have continued the auction rather than go to IDB -- but hindsight is 20/20).
One pax that drew the short straw adamantly refused to leave the plane (note that it matters not a wit from a legal perspective that he was already on the plane. If the CoC says he can be denied a seat on the flight, it doesn't matter whether he has passed through the BP scanner yet or not. Note, I have seen people get on fully-booked planes who then find that their seat is broken. They have to leave the plane and hope the agent can find someone willing to give up a seat. Being already on the plane means nothing for the process.)
The police that removed the gentleman from the plane were heavy-handed. But his refusal to cooperate only made the situation worse. (note, that if he was in the legal right about being able to fly, his far better path would have been to leave the plane under verbal protest, and then sue in civil court for breach of CoC. Acting uncooperatively only hurts his subsequent legal position)
Finally, one can Google "airline X bumped me from flight" and find examples of this type of instance occurring for every major airline, because they all have pretty much the same CoC. The only important differences in this case were the crude behavior of the police and the belligerent response by the unlucky pax. No party here is completely blameless.

[RatherBeFlying]

Surely some sum short of $5,000 would have found a fourth volunteer.

The DH could have been put on another carrier, or a charter flight, but that might have cost more than $5,000.

If the doc had patients waiting for scheduled surgery, they can sue UA for delayed treatment and the hospital can sue for lost OR time.

[HEMS driver]

What are the facts here?

UA Express had a 70 seat plane that they needed to fit 74 people on.
UA tried to get 4 people to give up seats, but $800 to $1000 didn't succeed
Instead of bidding higher, UA decided to use IDB to reduce the load. (Note that in retrospect, I am sure that if UA could do things over, it would decide to have continued the auction rather than go to IDB -- but hindsight is 20/20).
One pax that drew the short straw adamantly refused to leave the plane (note that it matters not a wit from a legal perspective that he was already on the plane. If the CoC says he can be denied a seat on the flight, it doesn't matter whether he has passed through the BP scanner yet or not. Note, I have seen people get on fully-booked planes who then find that their seat is broken. They have to leave the plane and hope the agent can find someone willing to give up a seat. Being already on the plane means nothing for the process.)
The police that removed the gentleman from the plane were heavy-handed. But his refusal to cooperate only made the situation worse. (note, that if he was in the legal right about being able to fly, his far better path would have been to leave the plane under verbal protest, and then sue in civil court for breach of CoC. Acting uncooperatively only hurts his subsequent legal position)
Finally, one can Google "airline X bumped me from flight" and find examples of this type of instance occurring for every major airline, because they all have pretty much the same CoC. The only important differences in this case were the crude behavior of the police and the belligerent response by the unlucky pax. No party here is completely blameless.



United's CoC says "denied boarding." He already boarded. Just because UAL has been violating their own CoC for years doesn't make it right.

Police can not arrest for torts (civil issues) on an airline. To do so makes them an unlawful agent for the airline.

Good luck in court, UAL, but they will settle for 6-7 figures with a confidentiality agreement without admitting that they did anything wrong.

Then they will do this again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[b1lanc]

At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.

He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum.

Really, are you serious? I've been on a UAL 727 overloaded at Denver. 6 of us were told to get off or the flight wouldn't leave. The initial offer was $200 with no overnight. I was asked and refused to get home to my daughters birth. 6 people volunteered for a free round trip ticket and overnight. This is nothing more the CHEAP!

[West Coast]

Rather be flying

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

[cooperplace]

people on this thread who are trying to justify this behavior by United (and to say that someone else did it is nit-picking) don't deserve to be in a service industry. Airlines exist because of their paying passengers: don't forget it!

[kghjfg]

there's a definite step change in COMPANY POLICY here.

It used to be "darn, everyone has turned up, what shall we do, we've entered into a paid contract, we need to convince someone to leave"

now it's

"We'll randomly pick people and kick them off the plane, yes "sir", that's not a euphemism, it could happen, I suggest you leave before we legally assault you"

What is of concern is its COMPANY POLICY to do this now, as confirmed in the email above.

"What? You're flying home to your mother's funeral, sorry "sir", company policy you see, right, someone assault him, quickly, we've not got time to waste"

Your seat is no longer your seat, they used to have to buy it back off you. They can now deplane you because they feel like it, through no fault of your own, is that really of no concern to people who choose to fly with them. It would concern me. Won't concern the sheeple, their planes are still overbooked today.

[Airbubba]

Fair enough. United Express is owned by UAL. Note how the "Express" is faded to emphasis "United." The brand is United. OWN IT!

That's the old pre-merger paint job that is no longer on the plane. But you are right, the branding is intentionally confusing to the customer.

Mapquest lists this as a 5hr 13min drive. If upping the offer to take a later flight didn't get enough volunteers, then the airline could have had a driver drive the employees to their destination - driving wouldn't have taken much longer than the delay.

Sounds good in hindsight but might not be contractual for a mainline crew. Also, additional rest might be needed for a reserve crew to make a morning departure, depending on when they went on call.

United's pilots are ALPA, I believe Republic's are Teamsters.

[jugofpropwash]

Sounds good in hindsight but might not be contractual for a mainline crew. Also, additional rest might be needed for a reserve crew to make a morning departure, depending on when they went on call.

United's pilots are ALPA, I believe Republic's are Teamsters.

Not saying that was the only option, but suggesting it could have been a possibility. For that matter, if the passenger insists they need to be there for the next morning and can't wait for the next day's flight, then you could drive the passengers to their destination. Airline already offered $800+hotel each - surely you could rent a vehicle and pay a driver or even get a limo to drive them for considerably less than $3600-$4000 and still have some $ left over to bribe them into taking the offer.

[artee]

One thing that I don't understand is how come UA/UA Express/Agents apparently didn't know that there was a requirement to get four crew on board, until after the passengers had boarded. Surely if they had known about it, they could have boarded (plane capacity - 4) to leave space for additional 4 crew. If they didn't know about it, why not?

[flynerd]

I suspect that most passengers simply think buying a ticket entitles them to sit down and be flown to their intended destination. :ugh:

It is not as simple as him just "buying a ticket"
From United's own web site, he made a BOOKING. Subtle, but important difference.

http://oil710.com/blf/united-book-travel.jpg

[peekay4]

One thing that I don't understand is how come UA/UA Express/Agents apparently didn't know that there was a requirement to get four crew on board, until after the passengers had boarded. Surely if they had known about it, they could have boarded (plane capacity - 4) to leave space for additional 4 crew. If they didn't know about it, why not?
Fact of life. Equipment break down. People get sick. Other crews get stranded due to weather. Etc., etc., not all knowable until last minute.

[_Phoenix]

After the "smart move" that allowed the poor guy to smash "voluntarily" his face on the armrest, moments later, he came back in the cabin, as shown in a video.
https://youtu.be/eU1HPwKrMrY?t=28

There was lost the last chance, the airline or a decent crew member could step up: "Ok sir, sorry for all inconvenience, we'll fly you home. Now the price of a seat is 2000$!

[West Coast]

You don't have the pulse, he's reasonably well regarded. He's brought on some talent after raiding AA. Let's check back in 48 and see who's right. That is unless you mean 48 months or years, you weren't specific. If anything the rank and file like him more today than yesterday for backing the front line employees involved with this.

[meadowrun]

March 9, 2017

NEW YORK: Oscar Munoz, the charismatic CEO of United Airlines, is PRWeek U.S.’s Communicator of the Year for 2017 – he is the fifth recipient of this title.

[Old Carthusian]

West Coast
This is not an issue of airline/passenger rights but a customer service issue plain and simple. As one with extensive experience in PR I would like to offer a few thoughts.

No matter how you slice it this is a PR disaster of epic proportions for United. Even if as you have argued everything could be justified from a legal and airline perspective this is not how it is perceived. Several factors are worth focusing on.

Firstly we have the treatment of the passenger which will be seen as unnecessarily brutal. Whilst it was the Chicago police who were responsible for the violence it was United that enabled it. United will be blamed for the violence.

Secondly we have the fact that his stated profession is a doctor with patients to see. Most will perceive this as over-riding any crew rights to travel in his place. We must also note that almost every paying passenger will expect to get priority over flight crew whether dead heading or not unless offered a serious amount of compensation.

Thirdly, the airline industry is a customer service industry and this incident has put a huge dent in that perception. The treatment of legitimate passengers in this way will be seen as an overbearing and uncaring corporation reneging on its commitments.

Finally the response by United has been poor to say the least. Munoz's letter fails to address the incident in a way that shows an appreciation of its seriousness and instead goes some way to exacerbating the 'them and us' situation. US airlines already have a low reputation for customer service and this incident will not help.

In this set of circumstances the airline can only be 'wrong' and will never be 'right'. The only thing an airline can do is be apologetic and institute measures to make sure that such an incident never happens again. Offering the passenger very generous compensation and a public apology also needs to happen. There is no other course of action.

[Oakape]

When he gave them a seemingly good reason to be on the flight, why didn't they just get the computer to chose another passenger at random?

[FlightCosting]

Chicago to Louisville is a 4 hour drive - by the time this ordeal was over, they could have just hired a car and sent their staff over by road. Narrow minded apes is all I can say

By the time the Pax has taken them to the cleaners, the could have chartered a GV with a well stocked bar and still saved money.

[CCGE29]

United hasn't tweeted all day, looks like they are hoping that it will just blow over...

Social Media is awash with spoof ads, videos and statements from thousands of people stating that they will never fly United. This may not be so true as as soon as Delta is more expensive they will probably fly with UA again.

The whole incident is shocking and the way United has handled it is just as bad. I presume in United's world they were just re-accommodating the pax from a seat to a stretcher.

[oleary]

When Law Enforcement Officers ask or order you to leave an airplane you comply. When airline employes ask or order you to do something on a plane you comply. Any question is resolved afterwards, out of the vehicle. Some Passengers think that buying a ticket entitles them to do whatever they want on board an airplane, it is not just so.

With logic like that you gotta be a cop. 🙄 The guy was a fully paid passenger with seat assignment who was sitting quietly in his seat when a goon in blue jeans and a civilian shirt attacked him. How would you react?

[West Coast]

Old Cart

I agree with much of what posted, this is a PR disaster, I as a worker bee however concern myself as to whether the process given to the employees was followed. Given what I can see at this point, highlighted by Oscar's letter indicate to me they were. This isn't exactly a complicated case, by this point the employees actions surely have been internally scrutinized. That's the niche I'm arguing here against a lot of folks who opine that the station, cabin and flight crews shoulder blame. There's idiotic suggestions that many thousands of dollars be offered to the pax when that in of itself is against the law. I list that as one example of the general ignorance offered here which is simply representative of the general public and thus the flying population. UA is in a no win situation given that the truth isn't an important part of the decision making process in social media, nor here specifically on PPRUNE.

[Cows getting bigger]

West Coast, you and I agree on one point - this is business. Business involves a positive relationship with you customers, especially when they are faced with choice. If you fail to give your customers a rewarding experience, they will take their custom somewhere else.

Of course, BIG companies tend to forget their customers single occurrences of 'bad business' have little effect on the bottom line. That is until someone else comes along and steals your business.

[Eutychus]

As SLF I would like to point out an aspect of this which I don't think has been commented on so far, and that is the reaction of the other passengers who were eyewitnesses to the events; not only those videoing but those visible in the video.

I would say passengers are generally relieved when anybody disruptive is removed from their flight and full of praise for the crew and/or LEO, especially if it means their flight gets to depart more or less on time.

The overwheming impression one gets from available evidence of passengers' reactions in this case is one of outrage.

[Chesty Morgan]

Truck

Quite simply, you're wrong. Moving crews is a priority for the airline. 4 pax bumped or 70 plus cancelled pax pissed because a crew isn't in position, that's just for the first flight missed. It ain't pretty but it's the airline life.

I can say with certainty that the agents didn't want this to end this way, and it didn't for the other 3. That the fourth felt he wasn't subject to getting booted and pushed it to the point of refusing the LEOs order to leave under his own power, well, he deserves blame.

Of course, there was no other way to get the crew where they were going. I mean, if it was soooo important to get them where they needed to be why not lay on a private charter? My company does so. Nope, beating up an old man was THE best solution?

Do YOU know for a FACT that the dead-heading crew were due to be operating?

[Lantern10]

Got to say I find some of the attitudes in this thread quite frightening, and I hope i'm never on any flight that some on here are on.

[West Coast]

Cows

Is it a relationship with customers or a fear of a social media backlash? Other customer obligations were maintained by getting the DH crew into position to carry them, far more than the one pax that caused the ruckus. He however punches above his weight as his story is the social media story of the day, not the potentially hundreds that were accommodated because the crew was carried instead. Managing PR and doing the right thing certainly are synonymous.

[david1300]

3 years ago we were booked on a United flight from LA to Brisbane (having left Salt Lake a few hours earlier). Turned out the flight was overbooked by about 8 people (from memory).

They called for volunteers and we moved to near the counter just observe the process. One of the would-be passengers was pleading to get on - he was flying to his best mates Bucks Party and Wedding (well, that was his story). I can't recall the other stories. He seemed genuine and we took pity on him, and went forward to enquire about offering up our seats. The rules were explained - he was last on the wait-list, and if we gave up our seats they would go to people ahead of him and they couldn't guarantee he would still get on.

At that stage the 'offer' was a night in LA, confirmed on next flight out (24 hours later) and $800 travel voucher. We were asked to step to one side with United staff member who quietly upped the offer to include 1st class travel on the flight the next day if we were prepared to give up our seats and just hope for the best for the guy we had taken pity on. As we were discussing this I saw 2 others come forward, seemeingly prepared to give up their seats, so I agreed to our deal.

Everything went smoothly - we spent a lovely day touring LA, Santa Monica and down to Long Beach arriving at the airport at 8:30 pm for our 1st class flight to Australia.

Somehow the treatment we received, and the way it was handled, is just so far apart from this experience. I can't help but wonder how much 'attitude' has to do with it all round.

[West Coast]

Chesty

Can't for sure, neither can you. Crews arent shuttled around for a lack of something to do. They were on the plane to fly something at the other end or position themselves for a later flight. SDF isn't a crew base for the contracting airline, so they weren't simply going home.

As to why a charter isn't set up, you'd have to ask the upper echelons of management, which I'm not. I'm concerned if the front line folks did their job, not why management doesn't have Lears plying the skies with DH'ing crew members.

[rjtjrt]

I have not read all this thread (got half way through), so probably this point has already been made.

The concept of an algorithm choosing who to deny travel to is absurd.
Different passengers will have more and less compelling reasons for needing to be at the destination.
The obvious one is what if a passenger was on their way to a dying close relatives bedside.

[Chesty Morgan]

Chesty

Can't for sure, neither can you. Crews arent shuttled around for a lack of something to do. They were on the plane to fly something at the other end or position themselves for a later flight. SDF isn't a crew base for the contracting airline, so they weren't simply going home.

So you can't say for sure but then state that they were. Which is it?

Of course I can't say but I haven't been using that excuse to justify the actions of the "front line folks" which, quite frankly are farcical and very police state. Land of the free hey?

As to why a charter isn't set up, you'd have to ask the upper echelons of management, which I'm not. I'm concerned if the front line folks did their job, not why management doesn't have Lears plying the skies with DH'ing crew members.

It would only need one and not even a Lear. The solution to your concern.

[Airbubba]

As someone presciently predicted in a now deleted post, United's new ad ;):

QjRBuWlNLF8

[Old Carthusian]

West Coast

"I as a worker bee however concern myself as to whether the process given to the employees was followed. Given what I can see at this point, highlighted by Oscar's letter indicate to me they were."

Following the process is of course important up to a point but then blindly following it no matter what the outcome creates incidents like this one. What is important in this sort of situation is the perception not the actuality. A passenger being dragged off a plane in this manner will be seen as a company far exceeding its rights (even though the opposite might be the case). Once the situation got violent, perception and sympathy in this case would rest with the passenger and never with the airline. If the passenger had been violent then of course the sympathy would rest with the airline staff.

In a 'moral society' it is seen as wrong to drag a 69 year old man out of a seat and off an aircraft so that aircraft crew can fly. It is more the sort of thing that is perceived as happening in police states and other less liberal nations. To then argue as Munoz does that processes were followed then adds may we say 'insult to injury'. It also sends the message that customers are not valued and that a sense of perspective is lacking among United staff and management. Note that I am not arguing that this is the case but that this is how it will be seen. The company cannot win and needs to 'stop digging'. This situation is a fairly standard over-application of the rules and as I mentioned needs an abject apology from the airline to the passenger.

[Wunwing]

I flew for a large Australian international airline from 22 until retirement including regular flights to and from the USA. I thought that I'd seen the lot until this. The event is on every news forum in Australia complete with video.

This week I'm making me choices for my next international holiday and for those asking, it wont be on airline staff travel/standby.

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

Earlier, while working, I was subject to an immigration visa "audit" in LAX due to a disagreement between the US Consulate in my home port and LAX immigration, so I know what I'm saying in the next part of this.

There are many optimists on this thread who say for United this will blow over but early this year a well known Australian author was also subject to a LAX visa review and she wrote a very accurate ( from my above experience) account of it which was a huge main story here. From that, I know of a large amount of Australians who now wont go to the US on holidays.

So this is my point and I don't think it will blow over for United or your whole tourist industry. I have a choice to travel to anywhere in the world. Can any US citizen or resident explain to me why with all these possibilities I would go to the USA for my next holiday? This event will for many people looking at the USA ,the last straw. I really fear for your International tourist industry.

[KelvinD]

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

[robdean]

West Coast

"I as a worker bee however concern myself as to whether the process given to the employees was followed. Given what I can see at this point, highlighted by Oscar's letter indicate to me they were."

Following the process is of course important up to a point but then blindly following it no matter what the outcome creates incidents like this one. What is important in this sort of situation is the perception not the actuality. A passenger being dragged off a plane in this manner will be seen as a company far exceeding its rights (even though the opposite might be the case). Once the situation got violent, perception and sympathy in this case would rest with the passenger and never with the airline. If the passenger had been violent then of course the sympathy would rest with the airline staff.

In a 'moral society' it is seen as wrong to drag a 69 year old man out of a seat and off an aircraft so that aircraft crew can fly. It is more the sort of thing that is perceived as happening in police states and other less liberal nations. To then argue as Munoz does that processes were followed then adds may we say 'insult to injury'. It also sends the message that customers are not valued and that a sense of perspective is lacking among United staff and management. Note that I am not arguing that this is the case but that this is how it will be seen. The company cannot win and needs to 'stop digging'. This situation is a fairly standard over-application of the rules and as I mentioned needs an abject apology from the airline to the passenger.



Amen.

And add me to the lengthening list of folks who genuinely, sincerely doesn't wish to ever have a seat anywhere in an aircraft that has West Coast upfront.

Can someone expand on how 'the computer' selects someone 'at random'?

[sb_sfo]

Not sure what it says about this fracas, but UA's shares were up $0.64 and WN's down $0.32 in an otherwise flat market today.

[reefrat]

:DThe Pax owned a contract for a service, (travel), which he bought from the contractor,, the contractor wished to void the contract,, the pax declined,, the contractor offered to buy out the contract, again the pax declined, contractor decided not to increase their offer for the pax contract and preferred other dispute resolution methods , result a 69 year old gets a flogging from pseudo coppers acting in a contractual dispute, a civil matter, and therefore none of their business. Moral don't be an ethnic in the states.