Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

Old 11th Apr 2017, 22:31
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by Claybird View Post
If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
Not if the sign over the coffee shop says "Starbucks."

Personal injury attorneys go after whatever deep pockets are available, when there is the slightest chance a jury would find the actions of the "venue" liable. And there is more than enough evidence (in social media/jury sympathy terms) to include United here. There will be a strong motive to settle and avoid further PR damage.
Photonic is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 22:35
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
> If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.

Isn't a closer analogy: "A guy goes into a coffee-shop and pays for a coffee, and sits down quietly at a table, and the coffee-shop owner asks him to leave before he has drunk his coffee because he wants his staff to use that table, and the guy refuses, so the coffee shop owner calls the police, and they beat him"
redsetter is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 22:45
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: LAX
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger View Post
A sad indictment of the industry?
Actually, I'm quite happy with the industry. The safety record of the industry is nothing less than astonishing. I can live with non-safety-related fubar. When the safety goes sideways, then I'll start to worry. btw, and apropos of safety and boycotting, an interesting read is the comments thread on the story today about this incident in the Grauniad where commenters are boasting about abandoning UAL and happily taking their business to THY and KAL.
5000 metres is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 22:49
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,264
As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.
No, I am afraid you are being idealistic. There are often things that happen without the captains consent. There is no suggestion that the captain consented to any of this being executed in the manner it was. The captain may have been doing the "walk around" for all I know. Even if it were the case that he ordered the course of action, it is highly unlikely that he oversaw its execution. I think you need put the " lawful command and other utterances of self importance" handbook back into your back pocket until such time as it is properly needed, and use management skills to resolve an otherwise difficult situation. That is achieved just as effectively by supporting other people under your charge to do the same.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 22:59
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Mercer Island, WA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by strix View Post
(emphasis mine)

With respect, this is not in evidence, emphasis on 'lawful'. Neither you nor anybody else here are competent to determine whether the instruction was lawful except a court.

Jurisdiction may quite possibly be Federal considering it involves an inter-state commercial contract dispute, even though carriage was internal to IL.
The top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee requested a full accounting of the incident, which they called “disturbing.”

“We recognize the importance of having passengers comply with lawful crew instructions, but it is hard to believe that some combination of better planning, training, communication, or additional incentives would not have mitigated this incident or avoided it altogether,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter.
“United Airlines’ explanation of the incident has been unsatisfactory, and appears to underestimate the public anger about this incident.”

Bold are mine.
Claybird is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 23:22
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
How much would you pay to have a positive television commercial such as this watched by a millions and millions of people not only across the US but across the world? I live in London England and most of my friends have seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI

This story is massive in Britain, and I suspect everywhere. It is a catastrophic disaster for the airline industry in general, and obviously for UA in particular.
I must admit that I'm astonished to see that a number of professionals such as West Coast (did you ever tell us which al you fly for?) believe that what happened was okay.
I find that more shocking than anything else about this sordid matter.
Here's a good piece in the "Economist".

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...n/tw/te/bl/ed/

Had they offered a million dollars to anyone to volunteer to leave the plane it would have been money saved.

Last edited by kilfeder; 12th Apr 2017 at 00:01.
kilfeder is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 23:23
  #447 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,161
I see that a couple of proponents of violence applied to passengers now try to justify the actions because the passenger concerned has a "record", only since uncovered? Are these proponents saying that he therefore deserved everything that happened to him? Are they saying that his sentences, whatever they may have been, were insufficient punishment and in their opinions, were not spent? I doubt any court of law would agree.

Strange that UAL were quite happy in the first instance to take his money, in advance, for a flight ticket.

His alleged belligerence appears only to have occurred once he was about to be forcibly removed from the aircraft. No doubt had his request not to "volunteer" to defer his ticket been taken notice of, he would have sat totally quietly.

To try to make out that he was going to compromise the safety of the aircraft is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 23:35
  #448 (permalink)  


Mmmmm PPruuune!
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 431
Gun Foot Shoot!
There is much hyperbole being spouted here but also countered by many common sense observations and many incorrect assumptions!
The Captain has ultimate authority only when the doors are closed otherwise he is generally the conduit for operational instructions from Operations.
That the situation was shockingly handled is beyond question and reaffirms my wariness of US attitudes and enforcement protocols. Plus how can the airline "suddenly" discover it needed to position 4! crew members ?..
In europe I could not begin to imagine this situation occurring. I have had to manage offloads on several occasions but always from a safety/inebriated, aircraft performance/MTOW, tech angle. Positioning crew will NEVER trump a fare paying passenger. Spare Jump/crew seats can be authorised but thats it. If the crew cannot be accommodated then the airline will charter to postion the crew as required.
This disgraceful mismanaged event was matched only by the defensive arrogance of an uncaring remote corporation.

Last edited by Greek God; 11th Apr 2017 at 23:42. Reason: Sp
Greek God is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 23:42
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,142
West Coast & Airbubba,
It seems to me you are deeply down into the weeds trying to justify what has happened in this incident as being OK from the cockpit viewpoint. I think you both need to take a look at it from a much higher level.

There is a rule of business that applies and it is blind to whatever business you are in, the airline business isn't exempt. Simply stated, "A company's reputation in the eye's of its customers is built over years and years of demonstrated customer satisfaction. But, reputation that developed and was built over those years can be lost in a blink of an eye when customer satisfaction, either perceived or real is lost."

While you are defending an event based on complex rules or regulations, some of which are open for interpretation, customers who know little or nothing about the rules you are using to justify your positions, look at visual information (270 million views so far) as to what took place and conclude that it didn't need to happen.

The customers are smart enough to recognize there were better ways to handle this situation by the airline and that even the way it was handled, created the entire situation. Turning the episode over to the authorities to solve was a huge mistake.

This morning, at the opening bell the airline lost $1B in valuation, at closing it recovered to losing only $250M. If you are a CEO of a company that deals with individual customers, thousands of them every day, you expect to have employees that are customer oriented at the lowest level. If you are not customer oriented on the frontline, don't expect to be ever among the best providers having the best businesses.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 23:50
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EU
Posts: 107
Clay "passengers comply with lawful crew instructions"

Astonishing.
Few facts, flight was not overbooked by paying passengers.

Passengers was not denied boarding, he had not been informed about anything until he was sitting peacefully in his seat.
What world do you Clay and West live in, SkyGod world I guess, who believe this is the right way to treat a paying customer, because the airline have problems to have crew for other flights.

Is the inconvenience of the passengers who are travelling to destination X, most likely because they have a reason to be there, are their lives less important than that of the crews DH, because the airline have their own logistical issues?
Can US pilots / crew not use jump seats? Or is that below their SkyGod status?

I once saw similar situation, gate staff made a mistake and allowed a standby passenger to board, before a Captain on positioning flight had taken his seat, suddenly the aircraft was full, jump seat was also full, Captain was told to stand down, there was never a question to have a passenger removed.

This situation is down to the airlines internal crewing issues, and showing disregard for the passenger.

Options available was upping the compensation price, or taxi for the crew, was within driving distance. However UA acted cheaply here, and the result is it has cost them a fortune already, and will cost them more during the next few months.

The Coffee Shop analogy is pretty good, the passenger was not a treat and had no obligation to remove himself after he had been placed in his seat.
I am fairly sure involuntary removal is either before you board the aircraft or if you are an unruly passenger, in this case he was neither.

If you have such disregard to your paying customer, the people who pays your salary, maybe you should start flying cargo instead. You can not forcefully remove a passenger who has legally fulfilled his obligations, the breach of contract is by the UA in this case, and it would be great to see this go all the way to court, unfortunately it probably will not. But I can imagine there will come some new legislation out of this, and it will not be in favour of the airlines.
BusAirDriver is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:09
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Here's an interesting example

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times
kilfeder is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:11
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by JumpJumpJump View Post
Did the passenger get to the destination that evening? did he fly the next day? did he cancel his trip? did he fly with a different airline?
Currently undergoing treatment at a Chicago hospital, according to a recent BBC News article.
gwynevans is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:25
  #453 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 62
Posts: 8,842
I think we can guess that the Pax did not know that he HAD to obey the crew command and it looks very much like crew did not spend too long explaining the details of the Ts&Cs to him. So, the fact that he reacted badly may have been because he did not know the rules and the ones who knew the rules were so used to them - that they didn't stop to explain.

Likewise, the stock market has not waited for an explanation. Just look at their graph for the last 36 hours. All other carriers must be very grateful to United for the free lesson.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:30
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
I see that a couple of proponents of violence applied to passengers now try to justify the actions because the passenger concerned has a "record", only since uncovered? Are these proponents saying that he therefore deserved everything that happened to him?
Malicious people might suspect that United, in a hole, kept digging, and employed folk to hunt for dirt about the passenger and leak it to the Press (even though any oddities in his life - we all have oddities and failures in our lives - are totally irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what happened).

Fortunately I'm not cynical and am sure that they did no such thing!
kilfeder is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:33
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Claybird View Post
As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.

The Captain could very well have said 'i'm not bumping anyone, get these people (the non-revs) another way to Kentucky'.



Again, the Captain green-lights anything pertaining to the aircraft.



If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.

United cannot and will not be found liable for the actions of these people who are not employed by the company. United could 0 but will not be found - liable for deplaning this passenger because, like I've said, once this decision has been made (rightfully or not, it's in the eyes of the beholder) there is little this passenger can do.
" As you very well know, nothing happens on any plane without the captains consent". Really, you sure about that, plane on the ground, at the ramp, doors open, no engines running, I'm not so sure.
Matt48 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 00:36
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 103
I can see this episode being used for years into the future as a valuable training tool on how not to handle a simple situation, Basil Fawlty might even be available to star.
Matt48 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 01:11
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
I'm gobsmacked at that story - how can any airline expect to remain in business if they treat their First Class passengers like that!
Jet II is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 01:13
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
Originally Posted by Claybird View Post
As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent.
So the Captain is responsible for the guy getting slammed into an armrest and knocked out?
Jet II is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 01:34
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Iraq and other places
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
I'm gobsmacked at that story - how can any airline expect to remain in business if they treat their First Class passengers like that!
As we've seen from the responses of many of the "professional" pilots on here, the attitude from the flight deck seems to mirror the attitude of the rest of the staff at airlines in the US. If you don't have the option to fly with a company that doesn't view it's customers with contempt, as in the US, then you're pretty much stuck with using one of them unless you never go anywhere.
Katamarino is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 01:40
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 516
The CEO could have turned this disaster into a PR success:

"I was shocked and quite frankly horrified when I saw the way our passenger was treated in the video. This does not represent United Airlines or the values we hold dear. I will be personally reaching out to Dr. Dao to take whatever measures are required to make this right, and on behalf of United I want to apologize to both Dr. Dao and all of our customers, especially those on the flight in question. With immediate effect I have instructed our staff to put the following measures in place....<insert measures where passengers are more important than deadheading staff>".

Instead the maroon made it 10 times worse.
Fonsini is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.