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, 08:58
  #521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
The individual that did the physical stuff was wearing jeans and dressed like a security guard, not a police officer.
Whether he was dressed as a central-casting cop or in clown shoes and a rainbow wig really doesn't have all that much bearing on the liabilities in this incident.
robdean is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:08
  #522 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,059
Whether he was dressed as a central-casting cop or in clown shoes and a rainbow wig really doesn't have all that much bearing on the liabilities in this incident.
You have missed the point, the reference to which I referred was wrong in all respects, police were not battering a passenger unconscious.
parabellum is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:16
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oxide ghost
Age: 55
Posts: 47
It now appears that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.

Apparently the airline grab-and-drag victim's full name is David Thanh Duc Dao, medically registered in New Orleans, LA; whereas the guy named in the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure letters is David Anh Duy Dao, registered in Elizabethtown, KY.

It's just possible that it's the same guy who's cheekily registered himself in two different states using different spellings of his middle names... or just possibly someone's now due a libel payout on top of all his other compensation...
Ambient Sheep is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:24
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Ambient Sheep View Post
It now appears that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.
If so, a few incautious posters on this thread might need to look to their wallets.

More (hearsay):
David Thanh Duc Dao, MD vs. David Anh Duy Dao MD
https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity...paign_against/
robdean is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:28
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,880
It's not at all obvious that a passenger refusing to move to free up a space committing any offence,
Completely in your mind.

It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.

So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.

As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:37
  #526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Completely in your mind.
I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew.
Absolutely right. But in this case the only instruction the otherwise perfectly behaved passenger disputed was the instruction to arbitrarily get off the aircraft. Are you suggesting you could tell a well behaved passenger to go screw themselves and then completely legitimately throw them out should they refuse to comply?

The captain's role and authority is one factor that will be considered in court. It will be far indeed from being the only one.
robdean is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:55
  #527 (permalink)  
SW1
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Completely in your mind.

It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.

So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.

As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.
was he smoking an ecig or drunk- no! So what offence had this man-commited? Refusing to give up his seat? which he had paid for and had a legitimate reason to stay on board.

why did they not try and find another pax to deplane? Using command authority in this situation was the worst call and will ultimately cost the airline(the commanders employer) dearly!!

Legal instruction relates to safety this was not anything of the sort..

my aircraft( its not yours its your employers)- Please!!!!

Last edited by SW1; 12th Apr 2017 at 10:04. Reason: my aircraft quote
SW1 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 09:58
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
He is a paying passenger not a recruit in boot camp. This used to be a services industry. Where did all the customer orientation go to? Is this really what operational excellence means?
I think a credible reboot is needed know. Nobody will wait until end of april.
It's an industry that has got the idea in its head that customers only care about low prices, therefore they prioritize cost cutting above everything, customer service included. Overbooking, shipping your deadheading crew as cheaply as possible, limit amount to offer to pax for off-loading, or whatever else, is just a result of this mantra - Be as efficient as possible. It's a dangerous game to play - a race to the bottom. But dark things lie in the bottom of this pit. Things that should keep every CEO up at night.
Shadowcaptain is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:00
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 406
The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." John Dalberg-Acton.

Authority, yes. But this authority has limits. Too many people here purporting (and hopefully only purporting) to be pilots don't appear to recognise there are limits. Maybe you have watched "Catch me if you can" too many times.

Surprising that some pilots are rushing to suggest they would accept responsibility for this and that they are in charge and nothing happens without their consent....... Because any sensible person would run as far and fast as possible from any responsibility for this disaster.

Hopefully the PIC was oblivious and doesn't take the fall. Because someone certainly is.

Someone will have already determined that all possible defendants will be joined in this action. That is already locked in. This is legal SOP and necessary if the case goes to trial and some evidence emerges that points the finger at some party - you want that party to be present in court as a defendant. This case isn't going to trial however. But you still want all possible defendants joined - there is a $ figure which will settle this, and the more defendants the less each one has to contribute and the easier to reach that figure.

The LEO know how bad this is - they have already stood someone down pending investigation.

The aviation people have much less situational awareness. In some ways it is not really their fault (although it is now their problem):
1.Airline staff have had a lot of leeway in a post 9/11 world, and they have used (and abused) this. They can be rude and offend and belittle a pax. If the pax becomes belligerent, they are deemed a security issue and dealt with. I think this attitude of power imbalance is cultured at the Flight Attendant factory - and some of the young cabin crew are susceptible to this power trip. For years now, they have got away with behaviour that simply would not be tolerated in any other customer service industry. Be honest here - how many of you would tolerate being treated in a restaurant the way your company treats your pax (the ones that make you profitable)? Every pax understands safety and security and emergencies. And every pax knows these justifications are over-used and abused every day. Every judge and every jury member will have endured over-officious airline staff - and the lawyers involved will know this. Yet another reason this case is never seeing the inside of a court room.
2. Airline staff have not had to deal with their actions being recorded on phones to the same extent as other industries. Police, EMS, teachers etc have all learned this lesson the hard way. Police know that every arrest or altercation will be recorded - and then edited as necessary before youtube. Aviation will catch up and learn this lesson - I suspect this incident was lesson 1.

This was handled extraordinarily poorly by all concerned. You couldn't have made this up 2 days ago.It completely got out of hand and spiralled out of control - because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency. And there will now be a very expensive day of reckoning. And this case will be cited as a textbook case of "How not to...." for many decades to come.

If some of you here really are pilots, I sincerely hope you never fly me or my family. Because I won't trust you with that responsibility while you cling to this delusion of absolute power.

Last edited by slats11; 12th Apr 2017 at 10:21. Reason: typo
slats11 is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:06
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
The stock price has barely moved. This is the true scandal here.

United is impregnable on many routes - the merger with Continental should never have been allowed to happen. Along with the likes of Walmart, Citibank and Comcast, through the utterly corrupt political system now in place in the USA, trusts are on the rise. Domestic carriers in the USA are now pseudo-trusts.

All this guff upthread about being in a consumer market, people voting with their feet etc, is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Stockholders understand though.

That you can batter one of your customers, have it seen around the world, and your stockholders continue on as if nothing has happened? Citizens United really has made big company's utterly untouchable.
rusty shackleford is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:07
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 590
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions.
As has been pointed out numerous times, it's only when the instruction is lawful that disobeying is an offence. In this case there is serious doubt the instruction was legal, hence disobeying is not an offence.

Unlike what some here have been postulating, you're not devoid of rights once you enter an aircraft. Quite the contrary, actually.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:21
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 75
Posts: 908
slats11......

A good summing up........
Planemike is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:23
  #533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 372
Brilliant and accurate post slats11.

because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency.
The airline industry, especially in USA, is full of it (and themselves).
ayroplain is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:38
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 406
Basil

the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.

I don't think any of these applied in this case.

Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
slats11 is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:45
  #535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 470
Pilots interpreting the law? Good one. And please lay off the 'my aircraft' guff. The commands have to be lawful to start with. The aircraft is on the gate and belongs to United. I have personally witnessed an over enthusiastic cabin person shouting at a passenger for using the wrong class of toilet ( United). And finishing off with 'haven't you heard of 9/11?' This is a grotesque use of 'power' to invoke such a tragic event to enforce petty rules to back up cabin crew interpretation of the 'law'. The correspondent who said that a backlash in the way customers are treated is on the way is spot on. He / she has recognised that for example a 300 dollar bill paid in a restaurant will have you treated like a king but a 300 dollar airline ticket means treating the customer like dirt. Karma is en route.
olster is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:58
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 54
Posts: 431
Hindsight and all that, let’s assume (bad word choice I know) that the order to deplane IS lawful under those particular circumstances, why not deplane everybody?
Why go after a single seat forcefully (target fixation), when it should have been easier to sort things out at the terminal, and when ALL pax were supposedly under the same obligation to deplane if given the command to do so (as they were later while they had to sanitize the aircraft).

Case study gold material.
GearDown&Locked is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 10:59
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Basil View Post
I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
While I have always believed what you have said is true, I can't seem to find where that is written. In the US I can see

121.317 (k) Each passenger shall comply with instructions given him or her by a crewmember regarding compliance with paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (l) of this section.
which is basically compliance with direct safety instructions.
§ 125.328, 91.11, 121.580, 135.120 Prohibition on crew interference.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part
which seems to be used to prosecute people who are actively being a pest or hazard and refuse to stop.
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
which is all about the pilot being the final authority on the safe operation of the aircraft and provides the authority to deviate from any rule necessary to achieve the safe outcome of the flight.



However, I can't seem to find anything that says the pilot can order Any action. The rules seem very focused on actions relevant to the safe outcome of the flight and the well being of the passengers.

In the particular case at hand, the crew possibly believed the flight was in operation and their duty was to get one more passenger off the aircraft to make room for the crew being re-positioned, making 121.580 relevant. Or possibly, just that they were in a commercial dispute (i.e. not relying on any safety or aircrew duty interpretation) and wished the police to remove their customer from their property.
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 11:01
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lossie
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Basil View Post
I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
Assuming in this instance the aircraft had not moved under its own power then surely the captain is not yet solely responsible under ICAO and FAR regulations?
m0nkfish is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 11:42
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 406
Re all this guff about power-crazed captains
I had always thought the real problem was younger cabin crew and ground staff - dizzy with their new found responsibility and authority and self-importance.

I had assumed the PIC were generally sufficiently mature and sensible (and recognised they had far too much at stake) to get into petty power games. That is certainly the case with the pilots I know. A lot of time, blood, sweat, tears and $ to get those wings, so respect the authority granted and don't overstep the mark.

However the attitudes of a few "pilots" here has been a disconcerting revelation. Maybe it really is an industry wide thing.
slats11 is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 11:44
  #540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 429
For those in the US, Munoz is supposed to appear on today's "Good Morning America" on ABC, which I believe starts in about 20 minutes (08:00 EDT, 07:00 CDT). It should be interesting to see if can manage a miraculous save or just dig a deeper hole. I'm at work so probably won't be able to watch (though I think it streams on abc.com), but I'm sure it'll be on YouTube before too long.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  

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.