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, 22:26
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
This because you have you blinders on. Chartering isn't something that's done in US part 121 flying. There are plan B and C, such as a later flight and delaying the departure the DH crew was to fly, if there is another crew at SDF already, alter their schedule, this being unlikely at SDF for a number of reasons. There isn't an established process to call some charter service and find out if there's a king aire hanging around doing nothing. Aircraft of that level are expensive and tasked pretty heavily to afford them, not a guarantee ones available.
Sad to say, my friend, but the blinders are on you or the industry. Priester in Chicago could have flown the crew to SDF, catered with a flight attendant for less than the denied boarding penalties and gas them there earlier. You need more "out of the box" thinking.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:26
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
Gauges

No, trying to educate people like yourself to the agreements and contracts established within the 121 environment. Just as you think it's stupid a king aire isn't called on short notice, a day one 25 yr old new hire pilot flying small turboprops could trip you up by pointing out that methods of transport are established via union contract, it's not up to some station management type to call the local 135 outfit and make arrangements. It's just the same with the CVR. There are agreements that regulate how CVR data is used. That's why this is going so slow, having to educate the uneducated. No harm meant, I'm sure I'd have a steep learning curve in a technical field outside of aviation.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:27
  #683 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 9,100
Originally Posted by noflynomore View Post
However once selected this person clearly refused a lawful instruction from the crew to disembark.
As I've said, two posts before your own: Did the pax understand?

Did the pax know he HAD to respond to this be leaving? 99% says he had no idea of the legally binding nature of the instruction. Was he informed of this in plain words and he confirmed that he understood - BEFORE he protested. 99% says No.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:29
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
GF

Priester in Chicago could have flown the crew to SDF, catered with a flight attendant for less than the denied boarding penalties and gas them there earlier. You need more "out of the box" thinking.
Perhaps you don't recognize this is potentially contractually illegal. Methods of transportation are set out via contract, not via some station manger or at the crew desk level.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:30
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 43
Extended interview withMunoz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
Preemo is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:41
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:41
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
I don't doubt the the UA PWA doesn't specifically allow for use of outside transport. Doesn't mean it could not have been considered; part of the next amendment negotiations; or, while not addressed, it could have been used out of the box. Have to look at the PWA. Certainly, a process with standards of service could be agreed on. Yes, I was on an MEC, so familiar with contracts. And, presently I audit and vet charter operators for high wealth people world-wide.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:43
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by noflynomore View Post
Gertrude, if you really believe that delaying 4 pax takes precedence over delaying 2-300 I really have to question not just your ability to understand what a Service Industry is, but also your sanity.

That's exactly the fake logic that makes this whole empty farrago Fake News
Nonsense.

(1) There has been no evidence presented that 2-300 would necessarily have been delayed, ie that it would have been beyond the laws of physics to get some crew somehow to the next day's plane without bouncing those four passengers.


(2) And if four passengers had to be bounced, the reasonable approach would have been to offer them some money in compensation (real amounts of real cash money, not peanuts in vouchers). At some price considerably less than the millions they have chosen to spend enough volunteers would have been forthcoming.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:50
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
GF

Anything has the potential to be negotiated in the future, that day however it wasn't an option.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 22:56
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.
this news.com.au article has the latest video
New video shows argument that led to United Airlines passenger being dragged from plane
unworry is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:00
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 874
If union rules prevent crew from flying a charter (there are plenty that operate out f O'Hare BTW and cost around $2000/hour for a good one) then put crew on the airliner and give the charter option to the bumped pax. Would still have saved money/reputation.

Just like to add for NoFly; I take it you believe that the interview with Oscar Munoz is fake news? Seems pretty clear to me that he agrees with the majority here that this should not have happened. He sums it up when he says that his staff have a lot of common sense but were prevented from using it.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:06
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Pax boy

There's a new video today where the officer explains to the Dr he has to leave, he refuses, saying he's not leaving, and you know what happens after. I'm trying to find the video, but it's out there.
Who cares? What's the point? We know he was asked to leave at some point.

However since he was already boarded and sitting in his seat minding his own business the cops had no right to ask him to leave especially when he had told whom ever at United he was a doctor that needed to be in Louisville the next morning to attend patients and that's the point!

The idiots at UA should have taken that into consideration and go to another person(s) on their list.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:11
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
JJ
Asking too much to stay up with even just the past few pages?

Who cares? The poster last page or so who asked if the doctor understood what was being told to him. The video proves yes.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:16
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,556
Depends on you definition of belligerence. Telling a cop you'll have to drag me off raises an eyebrow.
West Coast is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:16
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,277
The view of a retired assistant chief of the Los Angeles Police Department: It was not a matter for the police; it was a civil matter between UAL and the seated passenger.

Makes me wonder who will pay more, UAL or the City of Chicago?

FWIW, my wife has seen a lot of people interviewed on the street by Los Angeles TV stations who all say they will never fly UAL again. My wife takes that at face value. I don't. A month from now, or whenever, most of the Internet savvy folks will book the cheapest fare on-line, whatever carrier it may be. I'm speaking of the occasional traveler who is not a member of a carrier loyalty program.
aterpster is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:17
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by unworry View Post
The video shows that the doctor was well behaved and also on the phone. He also tells the cop he's a physician and needs to be in the office tomorrow and because of this he tells them 3 times he won't get off the airplane...

How stupid is that cop and UA personnel standing there?

Again, United should have upped the deal or in this case seeing the doctor had a legit reason to stay onboard move on to another person on the list.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:22
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
JJ
Asking too much to stay up with even just the past few pages?

Who cares? The poster last page or so who asked if the doctor understood what was being told to him. The video proves yes.
Yes, yes I have been reading and understand that some people were asking about the doctor's understanding of the matter.

I for one understand that the doctor did understand the situation and in fact he proves it himself by rejecting the $800 offer when he finds out that the next flight he will be on will be almost 24 hours later thus missing his appointments with patients the next morning... Is that so hard to understand?

Which brings me back to the really stupid people at UA (and the cop) that could not understand his position.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:30
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Gauges

No, trying to educate people like yourself to the agreements and contracts established within the 121 environment. Just as you think it's stupid a king aire isn't called on short notice, a day one 25 yr old new hire pilot flying small turboprops could trip you up by pointing out that methods of transport are established via union contract, it's not up to some station management type to call the local 135 outfit and make arrangements. It's just the same with the CVR. There are agreements that regulate how CVR data is used. That's why this is going so slow, having to educate the uneducated. No harm meant, I'm sure I'd have a steep learning curve in a technical field outside of aviation.
I'm not, of course, arguing that they should have started calling random Part 135 operators out of the phone book, or paged the airport "Anyone here got a light twin we might borrow?", and your suggestion that that's what I or anyone else with knowledge of the industry is arguing, is obnoxiously condescending.

This is a global, sophisticated carrier with nearly 5,000 flt ops per day.
  • If the gate crew didn't think to offer higher compensation to entice more people off the aircraft, then that's egg on United's face.
  • If the gate crew thought of offering more compensation, but weren't authorized to do so, then that's an organizational failure around the issue of staff empowerment, and it's egg on United's face.
  • If the gate crew wasn't given suffiicent authority, but tried to overcome that by reach an appropriate level of management, but couldn't do so, that's an organizational failure around operational management: egg on United's face.
  • If they contacted a manager with the requisite authority to increase the compensation, and the manager turned them down, then that's a failure of corporate priority-setting: egg on United's face.
  • If there was no procedure in place for ops to book a charter to get this crew to their destination, then that's an organizational failure around contingency or IROPS planning; egg on United's face.
  • If there was no contractual provision to let United fly these 4 via charter, then that's an organizational failure around negotiating a union contract that allows the airline to function: egg on United's face.

The people who created this problem, and those here arguing your side of this, seem to be thinking the way you'd expect a departmental bookkeeper to think rather than the way you'd expect senior management of a successful airline to think.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:37
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
He sure appears to be belligerent in the latest video - not.

Based on dozens of comments in this thread, it would appear that there is a culture within U.S. airlines of "we have always done it this way," and "it's not in our CBA," and "f**k the SLF/paying public. I make $3-400k/year, so screw them."

"Thinking outside the box" is, well, outside their comfort zone. Maybe they need comfort dogs and safe spaces.

I also suspect that U.S. airlines have been kicking compliant passengers off airplanes (post-boarding, i.e. in their seat) for so long that it has become acceptable, even though likely illegal and certainly contrary to their CoC. This practice has come to light because of this incident. Someone had the guts to say - NO!

They either have to set their computers to default to permanently reserve four seats on each flight, and use the tried and true "standby passenger system." If the four seats aren't utilized by DH crew, then let the standby passengers have them.

Or charter.

None of this will work of course, because it is outside the box.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2017, 23:42
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 362
The law from the CFRs:

250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily

From a lawyer friend:

"At the point where the incident happened all pax held "confirmed reserved space" and indeed were occupying their seats. The late-arriving positioning crew did not hold "confirmed reserved space". Even disregarding the fact that boarding had in fact already taken place, it was impossible to involuntarily deny boarding to any of the pax - let alone to involuntarily remove them from the aircraft after they boarded! - as that would contravene the explicit legal requirement of CFR 14. 250.2A to remove the "smallest practicable number". Claimed 'Operational requirements' do not signify here; United prima facie acted illegally.

As regards removal of pax from the aircraft for any other reason than 'denied boarding' there are a list of circumstances in United's conditions of carriage when that is permitted; on the evidence I've seen this pax didn't meet any of them.

United are intercoursed"

(He used a word other than "intercoursed" which might get the post moderated if I repeated it)

Make of that what you will. But it makes sense to me.

Last edited by Ranger One; 14th Apr 2017 at 03:18.
Ranger One 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.