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 12th Apr 2017, 06:00
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: BHX LXR ASW
Posts: 2,195
if you want to know, you'll have to wade through the thread.
I was trying to avoid all the bs that's been spouted on here. Anyway here's a real screamer from about 2 years ago. Similar situation?

United Express passenger filmed being kicked off a plane whilst swearing at police | Daily Mail Online
crewmeal is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:21
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 301
It's refreshing to hear from someone who's worked for the regionals and has now gotten enough sleep to be able to join a thread full of Phoenix Wright lawyers.

Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.
I will agree that is how the UA and Republic treated it, and that's probably the mentality that many of the people who have been derided on this thread have. But that is a non-obvious assumption, since the documents posted here make a clear distinction between "denied boarding" and "removed from aircraft", and they have different criteria.
Clearly, it's in the interest of the operators to have "boarded" count for revenue purposes as early as possible (e.g., when the ticket is scanned at the gate, and the machine registers "boarded"), and for denied purposes, as late as possible (e.g., anytime before V1).
Company policy, even "Industry Practice" doesn't automatically make case law, and it's probably in the interest of the whole industry that this distinction be left vague, so that operators can interpret it in their favor.
In the US, to answer a question raised above, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Constitution (thank you Mr. Blackstone) and can be invoked in both criminal and civil cases. In civil cases that are complex and involve two corporate parties, the right is usually waived. In a Joe-Public-vs.-Big-Corporation Tort case, Joe Public often wants his jury. When you hear of massive awards in civil cases (like "1 day's revenue from all the McDonalds in the world), it's often a jury decision (then, on appeal, the whole thing gets knocked down).
The victim here is allegedly a poker player, and a fairly wild one at that. So while the smart move would be to settle quickly for a large sum of money, he and his legal team might be willing to risk the expense of a jury case to get a massive award, which they can then use to negotiate a better settlement in exchange for dropping the appeals.
DingerX is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:35
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oxide ghost
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
And that raises another point, some video footage seems to suggest that he was travelling with a female companion. See female running down aisle in hot pursuit.
Can we presume in such a case, if it is the case, that the offer to re-accommodate was for both him and his companion? After all, they only needed ONE more seat, or so it has been reported.
At least one report I've read states that after the first couple volunteered (thus two more seats needed), the third person to volunteer was indeed the doctor's wife, the doctor himself only refusing once he realised that the flight they were going to put them on was the following afternoon, not later on the same evening.

So I assume that the woman seen running down the aisle after him is indeed his wife.
Ambient Sheep is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:37
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Good to see UA being held responsible by the use of Social media and phone video footage.

No way their PR spin doctors could get away with denying everything and blame the passenger.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:38
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Island Paradise
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by Matt48 View Post
It's a ONE hour flight FFS, how urgent was it.
That is a good question. Everyone seems to be fine with the crew taking a 5 hour van ride. Lets say you are on the Monday morning flight from SDF-ORD connecting to say HKG. You have a confirmed ticket. Now your flight to Chicago is delayed 5 hours meaning you will miss your connection to Hong Kong. You have to stay in a hotel one night. The Tuesday flight to HKG is full, you know you are now on standby for that flight, not confirmed.

How many days are you happy to be delayed in Chicago because one passenger refuses to comply with a valid instruction to deplane, thus allowing you crew to get to the hotel in SDF to get their required rest so you can get out on time?
Koan is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:40
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Can someone tell me what happened after all the scuffle?
Did an airline employee take the now vacated seat?
Did the flight leave "normally"?
There are some reports that the said evicted passenger then returned - if true and it seems unlikely this is the most bizarre aspect of the case - did they just let him go outside the plane and then he simply walked back on and if so where did he sit or was it just to retrieve his hand luggage.

Frankly if anyone offered me $800 to leave I'd regard it as a joke, given the consequential knockon losses to me and other costs including loss of opportunity I'd likely incur as a result of not being on the flight.
Add a zero on the end and I'd go.
dsc810 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:45
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
The passengers were de-boarded so that the aircraft could be sanitised. When the UA crew did arrive at the aircraft they were 'booed' by the passengers and the flight finally arrived in SDF nearly 3 hours late.
CCGE29 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:51
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,762
Originally Posted by dsc810 View Post
Can someone tell me what happened after all the scuffle?
Did an airline employee take the now vacated seat?
Did the flight leave "normally"?
Most reports suggest that the flight finally left after a delay of a couple of hours with the DH crew on board (and being given a hard time by some of the passengers, which seems a tad unfair as it wasn't the crew's fault).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:54
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Island Paradise
Posts: 109
Read the fine print it is all in the contract of carriage. Wow, with cheering on Booing the crew who were instructed by their Crew Scheduling department to DH on a certain flight, who would face certain discipline up to and including being sacked for refusal. I'm done with this thread. I thought this was a professional pilots forum.
Koan is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:56
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Koan View Post
How many days are you happy to be delayed in Chicago because one passenger refuses to comply with a valid instruction to deplane, thus allowing you crew to get to the hotel in SDF to get their required rest so you can get out on time?
You are trying to push the responsibility for the problem of an airline over to its customers. That's not how it works. If your operation has, for whatever reason, taken a tumble, you don't attempt to save the itinerary of one customer by screwing over the next one.

UA had a phalanx of options available to them for getting that crew in place, in time; they chose what they thought was the cheapest and the path of least resistance.

And lets dispense with the 'valid instruction' BS; the instruction was neither valid nor legal. It was an ill-advised attempt at saving a few bucks by screwing over paying customers, nothing more or less.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 06:59
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,762
Originally Posted by Chris2303 View Post
The idea of offering vouchers seems more than a little absurd.

Offer $800 cash and you might get more takers.
As pointed out more than once in this thread, a passenger can insist that denied boarding compensation be made in cash rather than vouchers or flights.

Airlines typically forget to mention this and trade on passengers' ignorance of the rules.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 07:57
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,718
Was the passenger arrested?
If so, was he charged with resisting arrest?
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:17
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 862
Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:20
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
UA have the eyes of the world on them right now.
The quibbling about T&Cs, captain's discretion etc. is, for them, like arguing what piece the band should play whilst the ship goes down.
If, whilst at the top of the news cycle, they were to publicly and unconditionally offer this guy $1,000,000 by way of apology/compensation it would *pragmatically* be money very well spent. They'd likely get it back in stock value before they had time to sit down.
(BTW, please no blah about setting 'precedent' unless you are a lawyer: the worst precedent to set is avoiding doing something smart for fear that someone might demand you do something stupid later on on the basis of bad analogy).
robdean is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:27
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?
Not that I'm in the know here, just read this during the day. There is no maximum permissible compensation, however there is a minimum permissible compensation.
SnowFella is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:33
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
I have been watching the various issues of this story slowly leach out and the whole cause incident seems to come down to the inability of those who have screwed up to admit it.
Meaning, why was the attempt to get volunteers not fully explained, as NOT a simple case of overbooking, it was an operational issue to move crew around the network to operate another flight.
Had the full ramifications of the over book/DH need, been made public maybe, just maybe, the required offloads would have put their hands up.
However, the events that panned out were appalling, truly appalling. Complete overreaction by the security staff and a total nightmare that could have been avoided, had common sense been used.
Were there no seats blocked in the computer for the DH crew?
Were the gate staff not doing a manual count?
alwayzinit is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:35
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
At the end of the day there were most likely several people onboard who would have gladly got off the aircraft for a $300 cash and a night in a hotel. Seems pretty inexpensive now doesn't it. Go the accountants!
framer is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:40
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,762
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
Why can they throw people out before the maximum permissible compensation has been offered?
In fact it's not at all clear whether they can "throw people out" at all (except for a small number of specific safety-related reasons, none of which applied here).

Originally Posted by SnowFella View Post
There is no maximum permissible compensation, however there is a minimum permissible compensation.
And, more relevantly, there is the level of compensation that is necessary and sufficient to induce the required number of passengers to willingly give up their seats. That number always exists, United were simply too cheapskate to pay it.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:41
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The queue at Security
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Koan View Post
Read the fine print it is all in the contract of carriage. Wow, with cheering on Booing the crew who were instructed by their Crew Scheduling department to DH on a certain flight, who would face certain discipline up to and including being sacked for refusal. I'm done with this thread. I thought this was a professional pilots forum.
Indeed. But there are also many people here whose custom pays the wages of said Professional Pilots, crew and the rest of the industry. We have both a genuine interest in the industry and the right to make our feelings known when we feel it (or parts of it) needs a monumental kick in the pant, as it does here.
Just another SLF is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 08:51
  #520 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,061
an aggressive Police Officer batter the customer and drag him unconscious down the aisle, bleeding, is NOT part of their job.....
The individual that did the physical stuff was wearing jeans and dressed like a security guard, not a police officer.
parabellum is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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