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 13th Apr 2017, 02:33
  #721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Indeed. Employees need to be empowered to make decisions outside the box when necessary.

All three officers are now under suspension. Hopefully we will soon learn what UAL staff told the Airport Police that generated their response. Regardless, whatever was said won't justify the use of excess force, let alone their involvement in the first place.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 02:47
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 67
“Aviation Security Officers (ASOs) are part of the public safety teams at both O’Hare and Midway, and complement and assist the Chicago Police Department (CPD)

Rent a cops

Not United, not the crew not UA agents, rent a cops.
bloom is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 02:49
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Just about. The Chicago contingency are not even armed.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 03:02
  #724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: west aust'
Age: 56
Posts: 33
they certainly seemed to have a chip on the shoulder .

I expect most of those on board to sue . can UA survive ?
laardvark is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 03:07
  #725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,003
I'm still bemused whilst trying to understand the logic whereas crew may only position (deadhead) by scheduled service and not by privately chartered aircraft, where sitting in steerage, perhaps sandwiched between two other passengers, is preferably to a privately chartered aircraft, personal service and able to stretch one's legs, when I worked crew scheduling and I were to have offered crew the choice they would have jumped at the offer of a privately chartered aircraft.

I recall my first airline department manager, he started his career at London/Croydon Airport and as the aircraft would taxi from stand the ground staff would salute the Captain.

In the main things have moved on from the age of dinosaurs, alas it seems that union involvement, probably refusing to move with the times and give up a right that has been in place since the dark ages, has created the situation that occurred last Sunday.

As I believe the UAL CEO was quoted as saying, that his staff have plenty of common sense but aren't allowed to use it, it seems that UAL, perhaps the union, have allowed it to be forgotten that they are in the business of transporting fare paying passengers and those fare paying passengers should always be their first priority.
Harry Wayfarers is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 04:31
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,003
“followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation).”
But, as I understand it, they didn't offer a single dollar in compensation, they only offered a voucher which I wouldn't imagine would serve much, if any, purpose once involuntarily offloaded and in a hotel bar, in a local steak house etc. etc. etc.

If all they offered me was a voucher I'd tell them to "shove it" also!
Harry Wayfarers is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 04:43
  #727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 535
I wonder if ethnicity is in the unloading algorithm.
Chris2303 is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 04:44
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 63
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers View Post
I'm still bemused whilst trying to understand the logic whereas crew may only position (deadhead) by scheduled service and not by privately chartered aircraft, where sitting in steerage, perhaps sandwiched between two other passengers, is preferably to a privately chartered aircraft, personal service and able to stretch one's legs, when I worked crew scheduling and I were to have offered crew the choice they would have jumped at the offer of a privately chartered aircraft.

I recall my first airline department manager, he started his career at London/Croydon Airport and as the aircraft would taxi from stand the ground staff would salute the Captain.

In the main things have moved on from the age of dinosaurs, alas it seems that union involvement, probably refusing to move with the times and give up a right that has been in place since the dark ages, has created the situation that occurred last Sunday.

As I believe the UAL CEO was quoted as saying, that his staff have plenty of common sense but aren't allowed to use it, it seems that UAL, perhaps the union, have allowed it to be forgotten that they are in the business of transporting fare paying passengers and those fare paying passengers should always be their first priority.
No passengers= no income=no business.

A no brainer, except to maybe unions stuck in the dinosaur ages and certain legacy airlines.
Thaihawk is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 05:06
  #729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,516
The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider
West Coast is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 05:26
  #730 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's my turn
Posts: 1,714
Hmmm. If the criteria included customer service...
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 05:40
  #731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 235
When it's the passengers doing the ratings, the rankings come out a fair bit differently:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Airlines
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 05:49
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 392
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors are considering a rule that would prohibit the use of SFPD to enforce policy decisions on the part of any airline. IOW, if you choose to deplane a passenger under overbooking circumstances, you get to do it...and you get to absorb the full liability of your decision.
Sounds fair if the airline created the situation. Sort out your own mess.

The airlines create this situation, try limited steps to resolve it, and then resort to threatening pax with LEO if s/he don't cooperate. This threat does usually sort out the problem, but if the threat doesn't work then LEO get caught in the mess.

You break it, you own it. Next time you might be more careful not to break it.
slats11 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 05:49
  #733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 533
While :

Originally Posted by Thaihawk View Post
No passengers= no income=no business.
is undeniably true, so are the following, as examples only.

Dickensian employment conditions = no staff = no business, and
No profits=no investors=no business, and probably a few more.

It's a balancing act and it ain't as simple as any one liner.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 06:23
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 105
Most likely this is connected to shareholder returns.
Matt48 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 06:41
  #735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 515
Local Bay Area news reporting that all passengers on that flight are to have their ticket price refunded either in cash or coupons. And more importantly, a class action lawsuit is being planned by those on the flight.

United is getting more egg on face.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 06:46
  #736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,434
Here's the initial filing in the lawsuit discovery process for all of the sea lawyers here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3450...ion#fullscreen
Airbubba is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 06:50
  #737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
After a quick scroll through the UA Facebook page it appears that every post has been 'hijacked' by unhappy customers and complaints about this most recent incident and also other incidents which are extremely similar. And before this latest incident there are people compaqlining about the leggings incident. UA have stopped responding on Facebook and Twitter now.
CCGE29 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 07:04
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 104
There are a few captains on this thread whose approach is 'the captain has absolute authority, all must obey instantly and if failure to obey gets you a blooded face, so be it'. There are excellent operational reasons for captains' authority, and the last thing they need is regulation or statute which complicates or curtails it. But touting such discretion as the final word in a case like this is unwise: there is huge public dismay at this case and those who use 'the rules' to justify it must remember that 'the rules' ultimately depend on society's consent and consensus: don't issue a loud open invitation for your degree of discretion (and every other captains) to be formally reassessed and possibly curtailed by insisting blindly that your powers make it impossible for any way you treat pax to be deemed unreasonable.
If you were to treat people, within the rules and without exceeding your authority, in a manner which appalled the Senate Committee with responsibility for transport, do you really imagine that they would regard the existence of those rules and that authority as the end of the matter?

Last edited by robdean; 13th Apr 2017 at 07:18.
robdean is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 07:35
  #739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
There must be a limit on how far you can go. As for West Coast, I hope I am never on an aircraft that he is flying. The captain might have the final say whilst in the air, when in the ground the final say is your employer and the owner of the aircraft. They failed this time and although many of you blame the captain the airline is ultimately to blame.
CCGE29 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 08:02
  #740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
Re all the comments about Captains,( this site used to be about 50% Captains posting....feels like about 2% now) I think there will be a lesson that current Airline Captains can take from this once a factual report is released and it will be thus;
Although ground staff and Police are usually quite good at their jobs, if a passenger is to be removed the Captain should hold a two minute meeting with those involved to set expectations about how the removal will be conducted and set a clear expectation that another meeting will be held prior to using any form of physical coercion.
I imagine the Captain involved just assumed everyone would do their job in a professional manner and it didn't turn out that way.
framer 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.