USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Passengers must be present at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled departure.
Perhaps they have an internal exception, I don't know if they do, but in the circumstances they should not have declared an overbooking situation after boarding had started.
Any FlightRadar24 experts out there? Is it possible to determine what flight the 4 crewmembers were going for? And did it operate as planned?
EX
Boarding is initiated prior to the 15 min mark which means people are still showing up when some pax are already seated.
As to your question, APC forums would be a better venue to get that info.
Boarding is initiated prior to the 15 min mark which means people are still showing up when some pax are already seated.
As to your question, APC forums would be a better venue to get that info.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: near BHX
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen reference on discussions of accidents to "get it in itis" or a similar phrase: pilots who have established a plan to land the plane on this runway on this approach, and become fixated on that task to the exclusion of alternatives (go around, divert) as conditions change.
I suspect that's what happened here. A stressed member of gate staff, confronted by four flightcrew who were claiming rights that they may or may not have had but that the gate staff didn't feel able to gainsay, became focused on "I need four seats, this is one of the seats I need, therefore I need the police" rather than looking at other ways to resolve the situation. Their cognitive fixation was completely "clear seat 26B". That people do unreasonable things to achieve one goal without thinking if changing goal would be better is hardly news, and something that the airline industry of all places should be aware of.
The claims that airlines are limited in what they can offer are nonsense: passengers are limited in what they can claim in compensation for involuntary non-carriage (both in the EU and the US, certainly); notably, they cannot claim consequential loss in the vast majority of such incidents. But if an airline is looking for volunteers, because it's better PR, they can offer whatever they want. They may well have internal policies which limit the discretion of individual staff, but that is their internal issue.
I suspect that's what happened here. A stressed member of gate staff, confronted by four flightcrew who were claiming rights that they may or may not have had but that the gate staff didn't feel able to gainsay, became focused on "I need four seats, this is one of the seats I need, therefore I need the police" rather than looking at other ways to resolve the situation. Their cognitive fixation was completely "clear seat 26B". That people do unreasonable things to achieve one goal without thinking if changing goal would be better is hardly news, and something that the airline industry of all places should be aware of.
The claims that airlines are limited in what they can offer are nonsense: passengers are limited in what they can claim in compensation for involuntary non-carriage (both in the EU and the US, certainly); notably, they cannot claim consequential loss in the vast majority of such incidents. But if an airline is looking for volunteers, because it's better PR, they can offer whatever they want. They may well have internal policies which limit the discretion of individual staff, but that is their internal issue.
ZZY
How does that jive with the Code of Federal regulation below? I may not be tracking what you're trying to express, sorry.
14 CFR 250.5 - Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.
The claims that airlines are limited in what they can offer are nonsense
14 CFR 250.5 - Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where was the Captain in all this?
All I can say is that this would never have happened on any aircraft I was in command of. Disgusting behaviour by the airline, the "Law Enforcement Officers", but for me, an absolute dereliction of his responsibilities as the commander of that aircraft.
What a PR disaster. There was significant value in UA getting their staff on that a/craft, ie the cost further down the line of not doing so. Not to mention the incidental 'PR cost'.
Offer an all expenses night in the nearest 5 star (peanuts in comparison) and they would have been scrambling off the a/craft.
Offer an all expenses night in the nearest 5 star (peanuts in comparison) and they would have been scrambling off the a/craft.
Last edited by Parson; 11th Apr 2017 at 07:44.
However you want to spin this, something obviously went very wrong here. An important skill, which is rarely demonstrated by very large companies is fixing problems like this. If I was the responsible person at United I would think, what would Richard Branson or someone like him do in a situation like this? A very public offer of first class round the world tickets might go some way to salvage the public relations disaster. You can argue that legally United are OK, but perception is the basis of true reality. In this case even if the man was unreasonable and it is not absolutely clear that he was, this needs a bit more than an apology and a promise to look in to it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: near BHX
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.
You see the word "involuntarily", right? That's a rule which applies to "involuntary" denial of boarding. It in no way limits the right of a commercial company to stand at the checkin, or the door, or indeed in the aisle, waving a pile of dollar bills under people's noses asking for volunteers. That regulation, as in the EU, limits the passengers' rights to sue for consequential and punitive damages in the event of refusal of boarding: they just get the defined amount (and no less than the defined amount). It's nothing to do with any deals the airline might care to strike with passengers who volunteer.
An airline can say "we're overbooked, anyone want to get off for a million dollars cash?" without any legal problems. You're trying to claim they are limited in this. You are wrong about this. A passenger who has been _involuntarily_ offloaded cannot sue for a million dollars. You are right about this.
You see the word "involuntarily", right? That's a rule which applies to "involuntary" denial of boarding. It in no way limits the right of a commercial company to stand at the checkin, or the door, or indeed in the aisle, waving a pile of dollar bills under people's noses asking for volunteers. That regulation, as in the EU, limits the passengers' rights to sue for consequential and punitive damages in the event of refusal of boarding: they just get the defined amount (and no less than the defined amount). It's nothing to do with any deals the airline might care to strike with passengers who volunteer.
An airline can say "we're overbooked, anyone want to get off for a million dollars cash?" without any legal problems. You're trying to claim they are limited in this. You are wrong about this. A passenger who has been _involuntarily_ offloaded cannot sue for a million dollars. You are right about this.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba: I have since discovered that Chicago PD are not quite telling the whole story. After being knocked about and dragged off the aircraft, the passenger ran back on board where he was filmed by a fellow passenger, bleeding profusely from the mouth. The fellow passenger reported that eventually the man was removed from the aircraft, again, but this time on a stretcher.
The sad thing is that, when the airline began asking for volunteers to disembark, this man and his wife had offered to give up their seats. Until United told them they would not be able to fly out of Chicago until 14:30 the following day. That was when the passenger withdrew his offer, saying how he needed to be in Louisville to see patients the next morning.
The sad thing is that, when the airline began asking for volunteers to disembark, this man and his wife had offered to give up their seats. Until United told them they would not be able to fly out of Chicago until 14:30 the following day. That was when the passenger withdrew his offer, saying how he needed to be in Louisville to see patients the next morning.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The positioning crew were used the following morning. The first UA (Republic) flight to leave SDF did not depart until 0813 the next day (UA3537 to IAH, N857RW). The aircraft that operated the flight to SDF (N632RW) from ORD the previous evening departed to New York at 0842 (delayed three hours, to allow crew to get there?).
an absolute dereliction of his responsibilities as the commander of that aircraft.
As an example I have no idea of UA policies but FWIW elsewhere this could ultimately have been construed as passenger "sit in", in which case following legal request from the captain to the individual to leave if an individual still won't move the local law enforcement agencies have to be involved...and, FWIW there has been at least one instance I know of (this time in the States) of an operating captain being threatened with arrest, when he, having called the authorities to resolve an issue he then attempted further intervention. It's not just a States thing, you'll also be politely but very firmly told to stand aside by police if you need their assistance on the ground in the UK.
Fundamentally on the ground it isn't "Master and Commander" of all we see anymore, if it ever was, so I'd cut the operating captain some slack until we have the full story.
Last edited by wiggy; 11th Apr 2017 at 08:11.
Even this email is appears to be written poorly. It clearly states;
' We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions'
Was he boarding or boarded?
' We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions'
Was he boarding or boarded?
When my outfit has been in a similar position once before (once only in my ten years), the ground staff have told me of the problem, so I found out what was on offer from the company and made a call for volunteers from the forward galley, initially there was nobody available so we upped the offer, eventually we got a taker. Simple as that, airline mistake so airline problem to fix.
There was never a discussion of randomly assaulting somebody regardless of what the ticket may or may not say. The law does NOT give any authority to assault somebody in these circumstances.
I suspect the good doctor will be lawyering up as we speak. Perhaps the airline does not endorse this behaviour but there initial statement is not exactly unequivocal in its apology and willingness to rectify what they have done. It smacks of obfuscation and not wanting to concede liability, who could therefore blame the good doctor for now putting his handout.
As rare as these sort of incidents are, they seem to happen an awful lot more in the US than anywhere else, perhaps that's my misperception.
There was never a discussion of randomly assaulting somebody regardless of what the ticket may or may not say. The law does NOT give any authority to assault somebody in these circumstances.
I suspect the good doctor will be lawyering up as we speak. Perhaps the airline does not endorse this behaviour but there initial statement is not exactly unequivocal in its apology and willingness to rectify what they have done. It smacks of obfuscation and not wanting to concede liability, who could therefore blame the good doctor for now putting his handout.
As rare as these sort of incidents are, they seem to happen an awful lot more in the US than anywhere else, perhaps that's my misperception.
Last edited by Willie Nelson; 11th Apr 2017 at 08:08. Reason: Last line added.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 69
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's new world. Airlines run by finance folks, this one came from CSX (who only haul freight), Pepsi, Coke and AT&T. Passengers are just another commodity. Fine aviation background.
For the Chicago cops, seems to be business as usual.
For the Chicago cops, seems to be business as usual.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheesh, I laughed when Richard Branson insisted on calling passengers "guests". Not laughing any more.
My non-American brain does not compute using sheer assault against someone who sat in a seat he had paid for and hadn't volunteered to move from. Even if they offered money/compensation, is there something wrong with listening to a reasonable request to continue travel because of compelling circumstances? Even those called for jury duty are offered that decency.
They have just pooed in their own nest for the entire world to see on video. Diplomacy - negotiating rules with practicalities. UA = own goal.
My non-American brain does not compute using sheer assault against someone who sat in a seat he had paid for and hadn't volunteered to move from. Even if they offered money/compensation, is there something wrong with listening to a reasonable request to continue travel because of compelling circumstances? Even those called for jury duty are offered that decency.
They have just pooed in their own nest for the entire world to see on video. Diplomacy - negotiating rules with practicalities. UA = own goal.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that I've laid out my arguments about the topic, yet I've been disinvited to the UK, told someone wouldn't want to fly on an aircraft I was piloting along with other assorted off topic snarky comments.
All because you simply disagree with a position I hold.
All because you simply disagree with a position I hold.
So cabin crew directions have absolute authority? Sir: get down on all fours and bark like a dog! Sir: take your clothes off! The idea that cabin crew have absolute power is absurd. Requests must be reasonable. They must be conveyed in a manner that is proportionate to the circumstances. Don't forget that this stuff gets tested in courts, often presided over by judges who have flown United.
What is all this nonsense about "UA's property" & an unruly passenger that should do as he is told? Bottom line is that he was a paying passenger who entered into a contract when the ticket was purchased & regardless of the small print & irrelevant nonsense the customer should have been given what he had paid for & not assaulted / humiliated in this manner.
The situation is made even worse by the fact that the fact that it was an internal / repositioning requirement that caused this - it's ultimately the customer that operates & funds the operation, not the staff & UA seem to be completely oblivious....
I guess in the same scenario I would have ended up getting a beating as I definitely wouldn't go quietly if I had paid for a ticket to suit my travel arrangements & had it refused for no good reason AFTER BEING SEATED.
There are plenty of obvious reasons as to why passengers may be taken off a flight & also why they should comply with what they are instructed to do by airline staff, but in this case "our plane, our law" has absolutely been abused & gone way to far.
UA deserve every bit of negativity & share price dropping that this sorry affair deals them with.
The situation is made even worse by the fact that the fact that it was an internal / repositioning requirement that caused this - it's ultimately the customer that operates & funds the operation, not the staff & UA seem to be completely oblivious....
I guess in the same scenario I would have ended up getting a beating as I definitely wouldn't go quietly if I had paid for a ticket to suit my travel arrangements & had it refused for no good reason AFTER BEING SEATED.
There are plenty of obvious reasons as to why passengers may be taken off a flight & also why they should comply with what they are instructed to do by airline staff, but in this case "our plane, our law" has absolutely been abused & gone way to far.
UA deserve every bit of negativity & share price dropping that this sorry affair deals them with.
Meadowrun,
'Finance folks' also know the value of bad PR. Regardless of whether or not UA were entitled to do what they did, there is a now a youtube clip of a passenger being forcibly removed from one of their aircraft. That will no doubt hit the bottom line and attract the interest of the bean counters.
As noted by others, they now need to engage in a significant 'positive PR' campaign to limit the damage.
'Finance folks' also know the value of bad PR. Regardless of whether or not UA were entitled to do what they did, there is a now a youtube clip of a passenger being forcibly removed from one of their aircraft. That will no doubt hit the bottom line and attract the interest of the bean counters.
As noted by others, they now need to engage in a significant 'positive PR' campaign to limit the damage.