Crew travel priority over paying pax?
The police had no option, he had to come off peacefully or forcibly. He chose the harder of the two. The scene and injuries were indeed very unfortunate. If he wasn't in a confined space surrounded by people he might have been tasered or sprayed.
Are you kidding?? He was a law abiding passenger sat in his seat minding his own business. So it is acceptable to assault him because United have made a mess?? Let them (United) stew in their own juice.... A situation entirely of their own making...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: WA
Age: 71
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept pax should be forced to offload for security/behavioural reasons, but violent force just because someone has f*cked up at the gate, applied to someone picked at random for offloading? No, not on. Who made the decision as to who was to be the victim? Random selection? This guy will be paid out millions.
I've been on a flight where we had to offload, to do with hot'n high at WAN. Took so long to pick the first ten, and offload ( no arguments, everyone did as asked) , that the pilot then came on and said, as the temp had just gone up another 3 degrees in the interim, (summer morning)we had to offload another ten . Just about the whole flight stood up to volunteer :-) :-)
I've been on a flight where we had to offload, to do with hot'n high at WAN. Took so long to pick the first ten, and offload ( no arguments, everyone did as asked) , that the pilot then came on and said, as the temp had just gone up another 3 degrees in the interim, (summer morning)we had to offload another ten . Just about the whole flight stood up to volunteer :-) :-)
I wouldn't be tootling around in the back seat of a King Air, too scared that there had been a party in the trailer park last night or that the food stamps were a day late.
The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".
United had no legal basis for removing the passenger, either under title 14-250 or under their own CoC. They claimed the flight was "Oversold", but it wasn't - it was just fully booked. Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats so they weren't "Oversold" within the meaning of the regulation.
I do get it that they had a problem needing to deploy aircrew, but there were lots of ways to solve that and gratuitously throwing already-boarded passengers off an aeroplane (in violation of the title 14 regs and their own conditions of carriage) is frankly not a solution that any rational company should be considering.
Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seat
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 68
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They literally could have offered someone a hundred thousand bucks or even multiples of that for the seat and got off cheaply looking at the PR disaster this has become.
But, I have a simple question. They must have known at the gate about the numbers, why didn't they sort this out before the passengers boarded?
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.
Unbooked and late-arriving company aircrew needing positioning flights don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats
If the positioning flights are booked at a time when there are seats available then I have no problem with them being given the highest priority. But that's not what happened here.
PDR
I really, really hope this isn't true!
PDR
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 68
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some parts of the press are suggesting that these four just arrived unannounced at the gate, after most of the Pax had boarded, showed some paperwork and demanded seats.
Were they United crew? the reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen elsewhere they were from DH. Is that an airline or does that stand for dead heading?
I hear the compensation numbers rising as I type!
PDR
I have no issue with UA offloading someone due to needing to get a crew member to another location and presumably avoid inconveniencing hundreds of pax as opposed to 1 or 2... that is logical. The execution/escalation was poor however but not a big surprise considering the way U.S. law enforcement conduct themselves generally (I'm sure there are good police in the U.S. but many need re-training). I'm just surprised the police didn't shoot him, that would have been less surprising for the U.S. Just watching Sunrise and damn commentators on there talking about overbooking, etc. which it wasn't... stupid presenters should shut up and not make things up if they don't know what they're talking about. This will not play well for UA however, despite the inaccuracies sprouted by TV presenters.
I imagine United has the equivalent of an 'Airline Duty Manager' for that port. If so, they have not managed the on load of the crew and offload of the pax well.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.
And airlines will continue to overbook and undercater because some mathematician or accountant thinks its a great idea. And it will ensure bloated executive bonuses can and will continue.
NPS anyone.
NPS anyone.
What about the other pax who, upon hearing that the bloke was a doctor with patients booked at his destination, just sat there, albeit "expressing" horror at what was happening.
It is all about "me"
It is all about "me"
If a police officer issues you a lawful (to them) instruction you have to comply. Three other people did, no issue. He chose not to. His decision.
I would be pretty confident that the terms of carriage for his booking allow him to be offloaded.
Do you know they did not do that?
Because passengers want low fares, remove overbooking and the price goes up.
If PDR is right then it was not "overbooking" in a usual sense, only that crew could not be accommodated. Three pax got off, this guy chose not to. Perhaps another pax should have been asked.
I would be pretty confident that the terms of carriage for his booking allow him to be offloaded.
The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".
And airlines will continue to overbook and undercater because some mathematician or accountant thinks its a great idea
If PDR is right then it was not "overbooking" in a usual sense, only that crew could not be accommodated. Three pax got off, this guy chose not to. Perhaps another pax should have been asked.
Oh balderdash!
The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".
United had no legal basis for removing the passenger, either under title 14-250 or under their own CoC. They claimed the flight was "Oversold", but it wasn't - it was just fully booked. Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats so they weren't "Oversold" within the meaning of the regulation.
I do get it that they had a problem needing to deploy aircrew, but there were lots of ways to solve that and gratuitously throwing already-boarded passengers off an aeroplane (in violation of the title 14 regs and their own conditions of carriage) is frankly not a solution that any rational company should be considering.
The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".
United had no legal basis for removing the passenger, either under title 14-250 or under their own CoC. They claimed the flight was "Oversold", but it wasn't - it was just fully booked. Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats so they weren't "Oversold" within the meaning of the regulation.
I do get it that they had a problem needing to deploy aircrew, but there were lots of ways to solve that and gratuitously throwing already-boarded passengers off an aeroplane (in violation of the title 14 regs and their own conditions of carriage) is frankly not a solution that any rational company should be considering.
I imagine United has the equivalent of an 'Airline Duty Manager' for that port. If so, they have not managed the on load of the crew and offload of the pax well.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 12th Apr 2017 at 02:54. Reason: added content
So if it was so important to have these particular crew at that particular destination, I wonder if they may be a bit too reliant on deadheading to keep the operation running. 1 billion wiped off the share price over this little incident. One slightly used false economy going cheap on eBay anyone?