Crew travel priority over paying pax?
Trespass! got to be a pilot comment.
Your house owned by your bank wants you out, you are up to date on your mortgage payments.
Your BMW your car dealer sold you, now wants his secretary to have it instead.
Your Rolex you need to give back to Rolex now.
Yes there will be ways in the contract (ticket) to allow the airline not to fly you, but they will need to be acceptable as per the contract - if it does not specify that offload under these conditions is 800 points, I think the airline will be in breach of contract and individuals of the airline and removing persons somewhat exposed to criminal charges and lawsuits
Your house owned by your bank wants you out, you are up to date on your mortgage payments.
Your BMW your car dealer sold you, now wants his secretary to have it instead.
Your Rolex you need to give back to Rolex now.
Yes there will be ways in the contract (ticket) to allow the airline not to fly you, but they will need to be acceptable as per the contract - if it does not specify that offload under these conditions is 800 points, I think the airline will be in breach of contract and individuals of the airline and removing persons somewhat exposed to criminal charges and lawsuits
The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.
It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.
None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded. Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.
The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally. But of course, what would they know???
AerialPerspective, I sure hope to hell you don't work in the industry. From the United contract of carriage. Please tell us which clause applies in this case.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Yes. 31 years in the industry and on many occasions including where a slide has been found to be inoperative we have had to randomly select people to remove from the aircraft and offer alternative transport to, also when an aircraft has been subject to an equipment downgrade en-route. The difference is, in all those instances, the passengers accepted it because we presented it in a professional and completely respectful manner. In some countries, the airline is able to do this and if the passenger refuses, they are required to increase the compensation until they get a 'volunteer' or acceptance by the randomly selected person.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 13th Apr 2017 at 03:38. Reason: addition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My $0.02
Having had a look at United's contract of carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx?Mobile=1)
Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.
Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.
Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.
How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.
Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.
Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.
How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
Having had a look at United's contract of carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con....aspx?Mobile=1)
Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.
Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.
Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.
How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.
Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.
Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.
How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
I am not entirely sure on this point but I don't think the contract is completed when the pax is boarded. I think the legal term would be that the contract is 'on foot' and is not completed until the services paid for have been delivered - i.e. an airline flight is not something that is delivered like other goods, it's delivered over stages and may be interrupted. Whether this interruption was justified I'll leave to the lawyers to determine but knowing the US, where for example, people have sued department stores for injury from falling over in cases even where they have tripped over their own child and still got compensation I'm not confident the ruling will be in anyway in accord with reality. Let's not forget, this is a country that didn't have the technical ability to determine between two people with similar names on a no fly list so hundreds or thousands of Americans were denied travel when it was someone else with the same name on the list and the government after 9/11 couldn't fix it for years.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 13th Apr 2017 at 15:17. Reason: sp
Not to mention a packet of salted peanuts carrying the warning "May contain nuts".
Perhaps they should put that warning over the ICE Primary lines in their most gun toting cities so travelers are aware LOL
Perhaps they should put that warning over the ICE Primary lines in their most gun toting cities so travelers are aware LOL
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 13th Apr 2017 at 22:10. Reason: sp
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't drive a BMW but the dealer demands the car back because it has a serious fault that could cause problems for people other than you and the dealer/manufacturer has been instructed to make the modification.
* They can not "demand" and there is no plan to that law in the pipeline!
The government recently informed that it has no proposition to ask vehicle manufacturers to conduct mandatory recalls in case defects are discovered in a model. Currently companies issue voluntary recalls if defects are found; applicable for all manufacturers, if a company believes that there is a manufacturing defect that compromises safety of vehicles, it will voluntarily rectify the problem free of cost to the customer. However, there is no directive for mandatory recalls in such cases.
http://auto.ndtv.com/news/vehicle-recalls-not-mandatory-yet-government-757151
The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.
* Yes but governments air not airlines! and there are restrictions. I know in one state said development must be started within 2 years of acquisition.
The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property.
Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation.
It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.
* The Doctor was not requesting a roast dinner, simply what he had paid for - his flight on said day.
None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded.
* I agree I can see United offloading a passenger during "lift off" on the runway. I assume that this is done by the order of the Captain who is at this stage responsible for all soles and craft.
Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.
If boarding was not complete then there was no reason to off load a boarded passenger. It is also clear that the DH crew seats were not pre-blocked and the flight was not "overbooked". The fact is United needed its crew to get to the destination of that flight, and they believed they had the right to offload passengers to achieve that.
But it appears that from what I have seen, if the passengers have boarded the aircraft they can only be removed if the are "not fit to fly". Once boarded it seems they need to be motivated to leave the aircraft - United seemed to have used the wrong form of motivation in this case.
The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally.
* I maybe wrong but was posted by a few on Pprune that seem to be pilots.
But of course, what would they know???
* They can not "demand" and there is no plan to that law in the pipeline!
The government recently informed that it has no proposition to ask vehicle manufacturers to conduct mandatory recalls in case defects are discovered in a model. Currently companies issue voluntary recalls if defects are found; applicable for all manufacturers, if a company believes that there is a manufacturing defect that compromises safety of vehicles, it will voluntarily rectify the problem free of cost to the customer. However, there is no directive for mandatory recalls in such cases.
http://auto.ndtv.com/news/vehicle-recalls-not-mandatory-yet-government-757151
The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.
* Yes but governments air not airlines! and there are restrictions. I know in one state said development must be started within 2 years of acquisition.
The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property.
Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation.
It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.
* The Doctor was not requesting a roast dinner, simply what he had paid for - his flight on said day.
None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded.
* I agree I can see United offloading a passenger during "lift off" on the runway. I assume that this is done by the order of the Captain who is at this stage responsible for all soles and craft.
Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.
If boarding was not complete then there was no reason to off load a boarded passenger. It is also clear that the DH crew seats were not pre-blocked and the flight was not "overbooked". The fact is United needed its crew to get to the destination of that flight, and they believed they had the right to offload passengers to achieve that.
But it appears that from what I have seen, if the passengers have boarded the aircraft they can only be removed if the are "not fit to fly". Once boarded it seems they need to be motivated to leave the aircraft - United seemed to have used the wrong form of motivation in this case.
The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally.
* I maybe wrong but was posted by a few on Pprune that seem to be pilots.
But of course, what would they know???
So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.
I was banned from the Rumours and News section of this forum as I stated that the Pilot (PIC) is not ultimately responsible until the aircraft moves under its own power (slightly different in countries) - Several Pilots inc a mod disputed that and said they were "In Command" essentially from start of shift or entry in aircraft.
So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.
So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.
Re the comment that the government is not an airline... with respect, I think you're completely missing my point in that words in a contract go only so far and everyone on here who is saying "Ah, but it says in the CoC..." are similarly ignoring the fact that a court may pay no attention to this at all.
So who cares??? The court will determine the validity of UA's action and the CoC may in fact be irrelevant.
As I write this I see a statement from Dr Dao's Attorney stating that he is filing "...a lawsuit against United for using “unreasonable force and violence” against the passenger."
Lawyers will usually file on every count they think they can get a result on and this lawyer appears to have totally ignored any irregularity v.v. the CoC and the removal and has totally focused his attention on the violent removal. This tells me he considers the CoC and the fact of the removal being required as moot.
No mention of the ticket, the Conditions of Carriage or anything contractual. As I said in my initial post, the case will likely focus on the manner in which the passenger was removed and lo and behold that's what his lawyer is doing.
You were banned for stating something that is law in many jurisdictions??? I find that pathetic... I'm assuming those that complained felt it challenged their 'Jesus' status??? How can they be responsible from sign on when they don't know the registration of the aircraft - how ludicrous and if you were banned for that I find that quite thin-skinned by a mod.
One of the reasons ground personnel are instructed to remain and ensure stairs and other GSE are manned is in case the aircraft encounters an issue on pushback and I was always taught precisely what you stated that once the aeroplane moves under its own power that's when it starts. My question would have been "when does the CVR start operating then, while the Captain is still in the crew room???"
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has always been my understanding that total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.
One of the reasons ground personnel are instructed to remain and ensure stairs and other GSE are manned is in case the aircraft encounters an issue on pushback and I was always taught precisely what you stated that once the aeroplane moves under its own power that's when it starts. My question would have been "when does the CVR start operating then, while the Captain is still in the crew room???"
It seems Qantas is not the only one to offload pax in favour of CE's travelling at Christmas.
United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online
United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online
It has always been my understanding that total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.
It seems Qantas is not the only one to offload pax in favour of CE's travelling at Christmas.
United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online
United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online
One mitigating item I believe as CASA usually inspect this when doing AOC issue, is that the rule is ameliorated if the aircraft is on an aerobridge. Staff do remain on the 'bridge unitl pushback.
Right now that seems to be the case, but not so long ago (within the last 5 years or so) it often wasn't, particularly at YMML. You'd be all closed up, bridge off, waiting for the final l/s - and the aerobridge would be deserted. If you needed it back on in a hurry, tough. No fault of the ground staff - an Amazing Tranfsormation was underway, and they usually had to be two or three places at once.
I love the way you folks are arguing/pontificating/ discussing an occurrence in the US based on your understanding/observation/ experience of what happens/ should happen/ is the law in Oz. Very parochial!
It's not too hard really. Despite all the speculation on here United just f**ked up in a big way and will now suffer the consequences.
Regardless of the legalities of the incident (which everyone here seems to be fighting over), the airline f**ked up big time in terms of ethics and deserve everything they got when the outrage and negative publicity spread around the world.
Some of the drivel from ****** lawyer types is perplexing.
Whilst passengers are on board, who accepts the responsibility for their safety if a fire is detected on or near the aircraft. The crew does that's who, not ground staff or the airport manager or some other tosser. Once a passenger walks on or is helped on board the crew are responsible. If a pilot is on board then via the chain of command they are responsible but unlikely to usurp the normal procedural conduct if something risking the passengers safety is detected. Whether the aircraft is pushed back and taxiing is a moot point. The only people qualified to order an evacuation, fight fire, or God knows what else are the crew. The crew can be Flight Attendants and or Pilots. If you're at the gate, boarding and an APU fire warning for example occurs or some other threat to safety, whom is responsible? The crew that's who.
Whilst passengers are on board, who accepts the responsibility for their safety if a fire is detected on or near the aircraft. The crew does that's who, not ground staff or the airport manager or some other tosser. Once a passenger walks on or is helped on board the crew are responsible. If a pilot is on board then via the chain of command they are responsible but unlikely to usurp the normal procedural conduct if something risking the passengers safety is detected. Whether the aircraft is pushed back and taxiing is a moot point. The only people qualified to order an evacuation, fight fire, or God knows what else are the crew. The crew can be Flight Attendants and or Pilots. If you're at the gate, boarding and an APU fire warning for example occurs or some other threat to safety, whom is responsible? The crew that's who.