United forcibly remove passenger
 

There's a thread in the flight deck forum "rumors and news" on this incident: United Airlines: Passenger forcibly removed from flight - BBC News in which a passenger was forcibly removed for "failing to volunteer" to leave an overbooked plane. Chosen at random, he was a doctor who needed to get home to see his patients. Excessive force was used so that the passenger had blood running down his face. Even worse, the passengers were being asked to leave to accommodate airline staff! Some posters on rumors and news think the airline behavior is Ok and that it's the passenger's fault. As a passenger I know that airlines exist to serve their paying customers. I've flown over 0.5 million miles with United, but never again. What do passengers, on this forum, think about this?

Last time I flew domestic in the US, I incurred the wrath of my wife by paying $1000 extra and flying an additional 8 hours in order to avoid United. Whilst the flight with AA was pretty terrible, I still think that it was worth it. Today my wife apologised and told me that she totally understands why I would have done so.

I really do not understand why Air New Zealand cheapens their brand by partnering with an airline quite as terrible as United.

If the mobile phone video represents what actually happened, then UA should be ashamed of themselves. I for one would have encouraged all the PAX around me to exit the aircraft at the same time, then take legal action against United as if that is their corporate ethos I would be concerned for my own safety.

If it is really true, that the flight was only overbooked after 4 UA staff need / wanted to travel then that is doubly reprehensible.

HOWEVER perhaps we should wait for the full story to come out, as often social media's version of the facts can be wildly at variance with the facts. Think back a couple of weeks to the leggins story.

I'm a bit puzzled as to where the captain was in all this, surely as the aircraft commander he should have put a stop to this incident, the people doing the 'removal' don't look much like police either.

That all comes under corporate ethos, how UA expects their employees to react in situations like this.

Can't understand what place police have in such an incident, unless a crime has been committed.

The Captain is not legally in charge of the flight until the doors re shut. On the ground full responsibility lies with the Despatcher/Company Ops Dept.

No doubt we only have part of the story. Lets wait and see if the Doc wasn't perhaps the last person to book a seat - last on first off is a fair principle if no one volunteers to offload but it seems unlikely that on a transcontinental size aircraft they couldn't find people willing to volunteer.

Re the upset about it being to seat positioning company crew as though that was somehow unfair perhaps best to exercise brain for a moment and think why crew need to be positioned, and how many people may not fly at all if they don't...what is more important, 4 people bumped or 300 delayed a whole day or more? Go figure!

Shockingly badly managed no matter what the cause though. But why blame the airline for the heavyhandedness of "security"? They were hardly United employees were they? If the pax refused to walk off the plane then what are security supposed to do? Shake their heads and say let him stay there then? If they are asked to remove someone then that's what they'll do. Why does that come as a surprise to anyone?

There's plenty more to this than has been reported and though far from blameless I suspect United is taking a lot of flak that should be directed elsewhere.

ATN

Not sure about American rules but for info in the UK this incident could be deemed a passenger "sit in" ( passenger refusing to disembark when asked/told )and if it is not resolved after all reasonable avenues have been explored by the crew the authories, including the police, have to be informed and will get involved......

(For clarity: I'm not defending what happened in the video, just answering your question)

bluesafari

I've been involved in arguing this elsewhere with some who seem to have some interesting views about Commanders powers.

The captain's authority on the ground, doors open, is often far from clear cut....the realpolitik is that in most countries in the world once you get law enforcement involved they consider they have primacy, it is their "show" and anyone preventing them from carrying out their duties will at the very least be threatened with arrest.

It was an 80-minute flight operated by a 70-seat Embraer, but you are no doubt correct that it would have been possible to find four willing volunteers to offload if realistic compensation had been offered.

In fact some reports are suggesting that the doctor in question and his wife had initially volunteered, but on being told that they would be rebooked on a flight almost 24 hours later, they explained that he had patient appointments to keep and needed to fly.

Spectacular, and completely unnecessary own-goal by United.

There doesn't appear to be anything in the ANO that backs this up.
All it states with reference to having to obey what the PIC states is:

Once the captain has signed for the aircraft then they are in command of it and thus anyone actually on that aircraft are required to follow their commands (if legal). There is no mention of the doors needing to be shut.

Simple issue here.-

Was the order to a lawful passenger to leave, following a VOLUNTARY request to accommodate, lawful.? If not the traveller was entitled not to comply. It will be argued that the passenger should have complied and sought civil redress. Such an argument is unlikely to succeed if the order was unlawful. I think the outcome will be that a commander's decision is not unlimited where a traveller has done no wrong, there is no safety/ health issue and where there were other accessible options not least buying out other passengers. Everyone( probably) in this circumstance has a price. It should never have come to this pass:ugh:

It beggars belief that the airline hadn't properly blocked the seats required for their positioning crew thereby ensuring that they would be able to travel.
Was this a last minute need to position a crew that caused the problem?
I bet United now wish they had just chartered a Citation or similar and positioned the crew. With all the fall out from this incident it would, in hindsight, have been a lot cheaper for them.

Everywhere I went yesterday afternoon people were talking about this incident. For a relatively trivial event, compared to what else is going on, I cannot remember anything creating so much interest. One man even thought that it was Continental Airlines involved so any brand damage might spread around a bit.

No mention where? Habas Documentum (show us the document!)

But if what you say IS true then how was it possible for Miroslav Gronych to be arrested in his own cockpit? Under your principle the law-enforcement officials would need his prior permission and could only have arrested him at his own specific request. So his arrest would therefore have been unlawful and no subsequent action could have taken place.

Except that it did, because it wasn't unlawful, because pilots are NOT absolute monarchs and do NOT have the authorities you suggest when the aeroplane is parked at the gate with the doors open. Even if they THINK they do...

Of course if the Captain *is* the absolute monarch claimed by some then the inevitable consequence is that the captain of this aeroplane will be indighted for assault/GBH etc alonhg with the airport official who did the deeds. It wouldn't matter that he didn't do the deed - if he is responsible for and has authority over everything that happens in his aeroplane then he is the one under whose authority these offences were committed. So should he also go to jail

As it was a United airways flight and was in the USA, I doubt if what the ANO states will have any relevance as this is UK legislation.

It might be covered by ICAO Annex 2:
ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air

But without knowing anything about aviation law in the USA, this is purely a guess on my part.

Seems like Oscar Munoz has had a change of heart wrt the incident. He's stated in an interview that this shouldn't have happened to a passenger already boarded and seated, and that it will never happen again on board a UA aircraft. It's on the BBC News app now.

Cabin
I have witnessed two over booking fracas one in Italy and one in Nigeria. In Italy a bunch of business types had suffered a long delay to their flight to Rome, which was then extended and they stormed an adjacent gate gate and stood and sat around the nose wheel of another DC9 demanding to be flown to Rome on that A/C. This was pre 9/11. After much arm waving and gesturing they were told to move or else action would be taken, they did not and the fire brigade were called, and these passengers were then given final option before hoses would be turned on. They did not move and got drenched.


In Nigeria it was far simpler, it was internal flight on 737 and flight was over booked apparently (I was on adjacent plane and gate) and all the passenger were made to run around the A/C with winners getting seats ! Some old dears looked as though they were going to have a heart attack.

Possibly 747Jock - but the captain can't sign the load sheet until all pax are seated and the next and final item is the closing of the doors. When the captain has signed both the Tech Log and the Loadsheet he has accepted the aircraft.

A comment from Wiley:


http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...psz554djph.gif

More bad publicity for UA
 

Oh Dear - all the bad publicity about Dr Dao, and now a giant rabbit has died while being transported by UA:

Three foot bunny dies after United flight - CNN.com

Man kicked off Delta flight for using the bathroom | Daily Mail Online

STuck and can't go to the toilet. Does it have to come to this?

Now United have changed their own rules/guidelines for compensation for passengers who voluntarily give up their seats on overbooked flights. They are now prepared to pay up to $10,000 per passenger:
United Airlines to offer up to $10,000 for forfeiting seat - BBC News

"up to" being the key phrase here. They will still have auctions starting with a $200 travel voucher.

Always take cash, travel vouchers have a way of expiring.

Offloaded Pax Reaches Settlement with United
 

Will the attorneys now sue the City of Chicago?

United Airlines passenger dragged from plane at OHare reaches settlement with airline - Chicago Tribune

Press release from the lawyers here:

http://www.corboydemetrio.com/media/...Release%20.pdf

Settlement reached with United
 

It appears United has reached a settlement with Dr. Dao and his attorneys, to no one's surprise. Also should be no surprise that the amount was undisclosed.

The doctor's attorneys did give kudos to United and Oscar Munoz for finally coming clean on their accountability. Whether there may still be action pending against the City of Chicago remains to be seen. No doubt they also would have a strong incentive to keep it out of court.

United reaches settlement with passenger who was dragged off of plane.

Under US company law, would this sum appear in UA's accounts?

I'm no expert, but this page gives some industry guidelines for minimum amounts that must feature in company financial reports. I'd be surprised if the settlement reached anywhere near any of the percentages mentioned for a company of United's size.

+ how many FF miles for the :E lawyer ??

Yes, I'm sure he can't wait to fly United again. :ugh:

Likely none. But then, with something north of 30% of the "take" for the lawyer with comparatively little "work" on his part in this case, he'll be able to travel any way he wants.

Surely now that UA have told everyone they are willing to go up to $10K no one will budge until they actually offer $10K?

That seems a ridiculously high amount of money for what is already quite a good, almost industry wide, standard level of compensation. In most cases people already get back more than they paid for the flight.

If you believe that, I don't think you have quite grasped the concept of a reverse auction.

You're right. I don't. Can you explain it to me? :confused:

edi local, I'd guess it's a reverse of a Dutch auction. Selling tulips they used to have a money clock which would start high and then start to reduce. When it got to your 'right price' you pressed your button and that pallet of flowers is yours. Hang on too long and someone else buys it.
I'm guessing that DRUK refers to that system in reverse which is, of course, more like a conventional auction except that the auctioneer states an increasing price until one of you caves in and accepts it :)

Haven't visited Auld Reekie for a while. In fact the last was for the opening of that weird Parliament building when we were permitted entry. Fortunately the beam didn't fall off that day ;)

Exactly.

The only way the bidding would ever get to anywhere near $10K would be if all the passengers collectively conspired to force the price up that high.

But of course that would never happen, there will be plenty of people on the flight who will jump at the chance of a few thousand (or even a few hundred) dollars, in the knowledge that if they don't, someone else will and they will get nothing.

The compensation amount is NOT related to the price of the ticket; it is related to buying out the passenger's consequences on NOT flying on that flight due to the airline's failure to deliver the contracted transport. If I miss a meeting a funeral, the compensation must be worth the loss of being there. If I have a million dollar deal, the compensation must be equal to the value of the potential loss.

Well, if they respect their pax before their shareholders, that would be a start.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ouse-committee

BUT
So the country that says it does not like to regulate, says it will regulate. i.e. Usual story! It's only because of the public nature of this that got it to the House so that they could show that they were doing something.

Bottom line? Pay higher wages to staff and give them more authority to change things. But we know that won't happen because you have to put prices up. Cynical? Yes. I've been a passenger for over 50 years.

Prior to 'dergulation' airlines competed on service.

Following deregulation airlines compete on price.

'Nuff said.

Prior to deregulation, airlines did compete on price with other modes of travel, such as rail and shipping lines.

Prior to deregulation of the airline industry, airlines generally failed to make a profit.

According to IATA, it is only in the last three years, (including the forecast of 2017 profits), that the global airline industry has made, collectively, a profit.