Crew travel priority over paying pax?
While the airline may have compelling reasons to have crew travel, the passenger may have reason to travel for equally compelling reasons. If the airline wants to offload someone, hold an auction, someone will fold if the price is right.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy. Next time you fly have a read of the conditions of carriage, the carrier has conditions that get it out of jail for just about anything. The carrier can also remove anyone it damn-well pleases from it's property in a legal sense. I don't agree with the method or the amount of force that was used but the offloading of commercial pax to accommodate crew in the case where they are 'positioning to effect the operation of an aircraft' is justifiable on pure logic grounds if nothing else. It happens very rarely and while as I said, I take issue with the amount of force, the actual offloading I have no issue with... it doesn't make sense to delay, disrupt and expend thousands inconveniencing 200-300 pax on a flight awaiting crew when the alternative is to inconvenience 1, 2, 3 or 4. I think United needs to look at it's compensation, although it's not obliged to offer any as this was not a case of overbooking which is governed by specific legislation - the law makers only getting involved in the 70s when airlines were selling a product twice - I can't remember the exact wording but the standard IATA Recommended CoC state something like "the carrier reserves the right to alter the method of carriage, the carrier(s) involved, the equipment, route and timing of the carriage for any reason as it sees fit".
If someone comes on to your property, even if you invited them originally and you then decide actually, you want them to leave then they don't leave or they are committing trespass. From a purely legal standpoint, United had every right to offload the passenger. The passenger is purchasing passage on a transport service using equipment owned by the operator... as such, it is property and they may remove anyone for any reason they see fit. I vehemently disagree with they way it was done but have had in the past word from both security type people and police that the aircraft is property and even when you offload someone from a flight for intoxication ('unfit for travel') although that's different because it's specifically forbidden under the regulations, you don't have to give any reason from a legal standpoint as it is the companies property and the company has the same legal rights as any property owner. Having been asked to disembark and given the reason(s), then advising them that he needed to travel, they having refused to budge and asking him to disembark, he should have just disembarked. It's not like a house, he doesn't have a right to 'squat' just because he's paid the fare as crappy as it sounds that is how it's treated under common law. While I think the Doctor's past is irrelevant as it likely wasn't known to the officers at the time, from what I'm reading now - and what the video doesn't show which is the initial request, we don't actually know how he reacted at first, he may have been abusive and/or threatening... the video didn't start until he was being dragged. So there may, like many things, be much more to this than meets the eye. WIth journalism being reduced to the level of any moron with a smart phone and the time to type 'epic fail' it is not always possible to navigate through the overuse of exaggerated and sensationalist words to know what the actual truth was/is.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 12th Apr 2017 at 07:20. Reason: correction
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, let's sit around for half an hour burning fuel in the APU and holding hands to until someone 'folds' - after all, crew hours don't matter, neither does the aeroplane sitting there not being flown or the passengers missing connections and the other flight that is waiting for the crew being cancelled.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy. Next time you fly have a read of the conditions of carriage, the carrier has conditions that get it out of jail for just about anything. The carrier can also remove anyone it damn-well pleases from it's property in a legal sense. I don't agree with the method or the amount of force that was used but the offloading of commercial pax to accommodate crew in the case where they are 'positioning to effect the operation of an aircraft' is justifiable on pure logic grounds if nothing else. It happens very rarely and while as I said, I take issue with the amount of force, the actual offloading I have no issue with... it doesn't make sense to delay, disrupt and expend thousands inconveniencing 200-300 pax on a flight awaiting crew when the alternative is to inconvenience 1, 2, 3 or 4. I think United needs to look at it's compensation, although it's not obliged to offer any as this was not a case of overbooking which is governed by specific legislation - the law makers only getting involved in the 70s when airlines were selling a product twice - I can't remember the exact wording but the standard IATA Recommended CoC state something like "the carrier reserves the right to alter the method of carriage, the carrier(s) involved, the equipment, route and timing of the carriage for any reason as it sees fit".
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy. Next time you fly have a read of the conditions of carriage, the carrier has conditions that get it out of jail for just about anything. The carrier can also remove anyone it damn-well pleases from it's property in a legal sense. I don't agree with the method or the amount of force that was used but the offloading of commercial pax to accommodate crew in the case where they are 'positioning to effect the operation of an aircraft' is justifiable on pure logic grounds if nothing else. It happens very rarely and while as I said, I take issue with the amount of force, the actual offloading I have no issue with... it doesn't make sense to delay, disrupt and expend thousands inconveniencing 200-300 pax on a flight awaiting crew when the alternative is to inconvenience 1, 2, 3 or 4. I think United needs to look at it's compensation, although it's not obliged to offer any as this was not a case of overbooking which is governed by specific legislation - the law makers only getting involved in the 70s when airlines were selling a product twice - I can't remember the exact wording but the standard IATA Recommended CoC state something like "the carrier reserves the right to alter the method of carriage, the carrier(s) involved, the equipment, route and timing of the carriage for any reason as it sees fit".
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the Chicago Airport Police which dragged him off using force, not the airline.
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.
If someone comes on to your property, even if you invited them originally and you then decide actually, you want them to leave then they don't leave or they are committing trespass. From a purely legal standpoint, United had every right to offload the passenger.
So, when United realised that they needed to deplane four passengers in order to get four of their own staff on board, they had no right under their own Contract of Carriage to do so on a involuntary basis. Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage deals with Refusal of Transport and lists 8 very specific criteria by which United can refuse to carry a passenger; none of those criteria applied in this instance.
When the United Airlines ground staff member decided he was going to arbitrarily deplane four passengers on an involuntary basis he had no legal right to do so; he was breaching the Contract of Carriage. His direction to the passenger to get off the plane was both unreasonable and unlawful and the passenger was entirely within his rights to ignore the direction.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Darwin
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shocking
I left the airline a while ago and now work for an Australian government department that 'HELPS CHILDREN"....... Last year there was a child in the office who is well known to staff and has several disabilities. He didn't want to leave the office as he doesn't particularly like where he resides. He was not a danger to himself or to others. He just didn't want to leave the office, he wanted to keep chatting to all the pretty ladies who were being nice to him. BUT it was 6pm, and someone in charge wanted to get home and have dinner, didn't want to stuff around and cajole him into do what they wanted him to do - which was leave. That person threatened him, telling the boy they would call the police if he didn't go where they wanted him to go immediately. He ignored the threat, being 10 so not unusual. The police were called. They held him by his legs and shoulders in a downwards facing plank position. The boy screamed and begged to be saved and helped. He was not released for several minutes and was carted through the office and down an elevator into a basement in this position. It was very ironic and disturbing watching this happen in an office which is tasked with "helping children". Anyway, obviously a sidetrack from the thread. Sometimes police get made to do **** they probably don't want to do.
Good point Ida, where was the captain in all this? Don't care who they are, I wouldn't allow someone to come aboard my aeroplane and assault my passengers unless it was jeopardizing the safety of all the other pax not to. So when you boil it down, a passenger was injured aboard an airliner at the airlines convenience which was presumably based on an economic decision.
If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Darwin
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess its an example of massive systems failure. Lack of training, time pressures, budget cuts..... I am sure everyone involved looks back at the events of the day and thinks wow I could have handled that better. Hopefully the company (and others watching) make sure it never happens again. And hopefully the poor passenger is OK going forward
Not when the relationship between the airline and the passenger is bound by a Contract of Carriage, they don't. Passengers have rights under the Contract of Carriage and those rights typically increase as certain threshold events - booking, payment, ticketing, check-in and boarding - are met. After check-in but before boarding United Airlines, by virtue of Rule 25 of the Contract of Carriage, have the right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis to passengers in cases of Overbooked Flights. However, once United accept boarding passes and allow passengers to board the flight their right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis is extinguished.
So, when United realised that they needed to deplane four passengers in order to get four of their own staff on board, they had no right under their own Contract of Carriage to do so on a involuntary basis. Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage deals with Refusal of Transport and lists 8 very specific criteria by which United can refuse to carry a passenger; none of those criteria applied in this instance.
When the United Airlines ground staff member decided he was going to arbitrarily deplane four passengers on an involuntary basis he had no legal right to do so; he was breaching the Contract of Carriage. His direction to the passenger to get off the plane was both unreasonable and unlawful and the passenger was entirely within his rights to ignore the direction.
So, when United realised that they needed to deplane four passengers in order to get four of their own staff on board, they had no right under their own Contract of Carriage to do so on a involuntary basis. Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage deals with Refusal of Transport and lists 8 very specific criteria by which United can refuse to carry a passenger; none of those criteria applied in this instance.
When the United Airlines ground staff member decided he was going to arbitrarily deplane four passengers on an involuntary basis he had no legal right to do so; he was breaching the Contract of Carriage. His direction to the passenger to get off the plane was both unreasonable and unlawful and the passenger was entirely within his rights to ignore the direction.
I agree there probably has to be a 'meeting of minds' and that boarding consummates the 'contract' but thought there were ample ways the airline can get out of this with compensation. If that's different, then it's news to me. I don't think airlines should 'assume' seats of passengers unless every other option has been explored first with reasonable regard for the timeframes but saying that you simply cannot remove someone... the conditions of carriage do not identify any circumstance when a pax boards an aircraft and their assigned seat is found to be unserviceable and they are therefore offloaded - but this does happen. I just think there are some grey areas here... but we'll wait and see what happens because the pax is going to file suit against the airline I understand.
If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.
I guess its an example of massive systems failure. Lack of training, time pressures, budget cuts..... I am sure everyone involved looks back at the events of the day and thinks wow I could have handled that better. Hopefully the company (and others watching) make sure it never happens again. And hopefully the poor passenger is OK going forward
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Sure, let's sit around for half an hour burning fuel in the APU and holding hands to until someone 'folds' - after all, crew hours don't matter, neither does the aeroplane sitting there not being flown or the passengers missing connections and the other flight that is waiting for the crew being cancelled.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy
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).
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).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then Megan, the cargo hold has to be searched for the PAX bag, who didn't win the auction. Just adding to the circus.
I can't believe there are people who can look at this incident and defend the airline. An incident which is probably the airline breaching it's contract, the police overstepping their authority, for which all 3 police have now been suspended and for which the CEO has unreservedly now apologised and stated the passenger was not wrong in any way.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayzuz, $1.3 Billion wiped off their share price....
United Airlines loses $1 billion in market value after passenger is dragged off plane
United Airlines loses $1 billion in market value after passenger is dragged off plane