Crew travel priority over paying pax?
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.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 15th Apr 2017 at 00:37. Reason: sp
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Accepts" and "has" responsibility can be 2 very different things.
Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.
Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.
I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.
Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.
When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.
Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.
Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.
I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.
Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.
When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.
"Accepts" and "has" responsibility can be 2 very different things.
Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.
Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.
I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.
Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.
When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.
Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.
Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.
I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.
Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.
When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.
Sounds like alot of misinformation going around. Here's what the United Pilots Union had to say. Interesting to note this wasn't even a United Flight.
United Airlines pilots are “infuriated” by the bumped passenger event, which should not have escalated into a violent encounter, the union representing them says in a statement. But it also stresses that injuries caused to the passenger were not inflicted by United personnel.
The United Executive Council (MEC) says it intentionally withheld judgment as the story of United Express flight 3411, operated by US regional affiliate Republic Airline, went viral this week because of the rapid pace at which information “both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.”
“The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event,” MEC says in its statement.
Ultimately, MEC points out, the violence was caused “by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation,” whose law enforcement officers were called to remove a passenger who refused to give up his seat. Their brutal handling of the passenger led to him being hospitalized with broken teeth, a broken nose and concussion. The lawyer representing David Dao said yesterday he was preparing a lawsuit against United.
The MEC statement also stresses that no United employees were involved in the physical altercation and says, “social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.”
“Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF [Louisville International Airport] and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement,” the MEC says.
“For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.
“Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.”
The law enforcement officers involved have been suspended pending a review of the event.
“Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight,” the MEC adds. “The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.”
The United Executive Council (MEC) says it intentionally withheld judgment as the story of United Express flight 3411, operated by US regional affiliate Republic Airline, went viral this week because of the rapid pace at which information “both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.”
“The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event,” MEC says in its statement.
Ultimately, MEC points out, the violence was caused “by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation,” whose law enforcement officers were called to remove a passenger who refused to give up his seat. Their brutal handling of the passenger led to him being hospitalized with broken teeth, a broken nose and concussion. The lawyer representing David Dao said yesterday he was preparing a lawsuit against United.
The MEC statement also stresses that no United employees were involved in the physical altercation and says, “social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.”
“Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF [Louisville International Airport] and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement,” the MEC says.
“For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.
“Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.”
The law enforcement officers involved have been suspended pending a review of the event.
“Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight,” the MEC adds. “The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.”
What makes me laugh is "the Chicago Dept. of Aviation"... jeez... how many bloody police forces and jumped up 'officials' and carriers of guns do they have in that country??? Some places are content with one Police force, or in our case, a Federal and State Police Force(s) but they have one for every conceivable segment... no wonder the the training is so bad. This lot sound like they must've previously worked at Crown Casino in Melbourne.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 15th Apr 2017 at 02:27. Reason: sp
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.
United must have asked the Police to remove the passenger.
Agree though the Airlines handling of the situation was bad, they should have just kept increasing the denied boarding compensation amount, till someone took it and got off voluntarily!
Far cheaper option than what eventuated!
Agree though the Airlines handling of the situation was bad, they should have just kept increasing the denied boarding compensation amount, till someone took it and got off voluntarily!
Far cheaper option than what eventuated!
Really? In a couple of airlines with which I am very familiar, positioning crew (to operate a flight or who are returning to base after an operation) are booked as "must go" status. The space is confirmed and pity help any ground staff who offload crew in those circumstances. The required number of seats are blocked with the saleable inventory reduced accordingly. It is therefore possible to still overbook a flight based on the reduced inventory.
The person who did the physical removal was not dressed as a policeman, he was wearing jeans and what looked like a security guards uniform, could have been employed by UA or a subcontractor to UA, there are several possibilities.
Regarding the 'property' aspect, you haven't invited this person on, they have entered into a business agreement with you and you have sold them the use of a seat for a specific flight, that comes with contractual responsibilities and liabilities and unless that passenger contravenes specified regulations then you, the owner, don't have just cause to throw him off, literally. What you, the owner of the seat, can do is offer to buy back the seat you sold him, for an agreed price.
Regarding the 'property' aspect, you haven't invited this person on, they have entered into a business agreement with you and you have sold them the use of a seat for a specific flight, that comes with contractual responsibilities and liabilities and unless that passenger contravenes specified regulations then you, the owner, don't have just cause to throw him off, literally. What you, the owner of the seat, can do is offer to buy back the seat you sold him, for an agreed price.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you employ sub-contractors to do a job under your company who is to blame?
* I say the company I paid my money to.
Now the real question is who made the decision to call Dad's Army - was that Republic Airlines staff or United Airlines staff such as the Dispatcher?
Did Republic Airlines have authority to offload United Airlines paid up passengers for Republic Airlines benefit?
Anyone want to buy shares in Republic Airlines?
* I say the company I paid my money to.
Now the real question is who made the decision to call Dad's Army - was that Republic Airlines staff or United Airlines staff such as the Dispatcher?
Did Republic Airlines have authority to offload United Airlines paid up passengers for Republic Airlines benefit?
Anyone want to buy shares in Republic Airlines?
I think you'll find it's illegal to depart with baggage on under any circumstances... not always adhered to in the US, especially with staff pax.
Pretty sure it is illegal on international flights, how much more delay would that cause, they have no idea where in the hold your bag is.
And why would making a comment that the notification could have been after boarding was completed (as it on occasion is) make me a 'company man'??? You must have a vivid imagination. The FACT is that these things DO sometimes happen or become apparent after a flight has boarded, crew going sick or whatever don't call around the network first to see if there's any aircraft boarding that might make it difficult to fly in a replacement.
Rubbish. The definition in one airline I'm familiar with is 'positioning to effect the operation of the aircraft' making it what is called 'operational duty travel'. KB is correct. At that airline if a crew member is booked (it's not called mustgo, it's a specific staff category) they WILL displace a commercial passenger and the reason is simple - denying boarding to that passenger and transferring them to another airline is preferable to inconveniencing the other 400 pax on the flight the crew member is flying over to operate.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Side note just to clear it up regarding leaving with the pax bag still in the hold (in Aus at least). If the pax voluntarily leaves a flight or no shows their bag must be removed as it could have been checked in for sinister purposes.
However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.
However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Side note just to clear it up regarding leaving with the pax bag still in the hold (in Aus at least). If the pax voluntarily leaves a flight or no shows their bag must be removed as it could have been checked in for sinister purposes.
However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.
However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.
So check a bag of C4 go to the Airline lounge drink some free booze for an hour, leave the lounge and board the plane early.
Part way through boarding ask the hostie if she will join you in the mile high club a bit later on!
I expect that gets a involuntary de-boarding and a result the passenger wanted! but not enough to be arrested if he offloads with no fuss. A good policy!