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, 12:44
  #761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 406
On the CVR discussion I don't think they could use it and not because of the 2 hour loop.
The lawyers know it was likely not recording at the time. However it is almost certain there was considerable discussion about the event when the flight eventually departed. And that is what they will say they are after.

They also know it will have been over-written.

But the "black boxes" are very powerful in the eyes of lay people. So it will be pretty easy to use this apparent "new development" to maintain public interest and cast suspicion.
slats11 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:50
  #762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by edmundronald View Post
although their job profile should allow them to say "we followed orders"
That hasn't worked since Nuremberg. There's no way a private citizen (aka "rent-a-cop"), or even a real cop come to that, should be able to get away with that as an excuse for assaulting someone.

EDIT:

Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:53
  #763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by slats11 View Post
The lawyers know it was likely not recording at the time. However it is almost certain there was considerable discussion about the event when the flight eventually departed. And that is what they will say they are after. .
Good point!
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:55
  #764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
That hasn't worked since Nuremberg. There's no way a private citizen (aka "rent-a-cop"), or even a real cop come to that, should be able to get away with that as an excuse for assaulting someone.

EDIT:

Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").
Yes they could definitely spin it that way to deflect the blame... What a mess this thing is turning out to be for United Airlines.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:56
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked View Post
IMHO pilots and gate agents don't get along too well, and if the gate agents were in fact responsible for this event (and having the authority to do so), what can the PIC do if not to step aside and let them have it their own way.
I'll both agree and disagree with the first statement. When poor relations develop, it's a case of attitude, personality and authority disagreements. There gate agents and pilots in equal measure, with chip laden shoulders and a need to establish territorial boundaries.

I've almost never had a problem, regardless which side of the door I was working. My experience tells me the best outcome is secured by mutual respect for each others responsibilities, and letting people do the job their paid and trained to do without interference, unless absolutely necessary.

Having said all that, there's a better than good chance the decisions were taken at the gate, in cooperation with the airline Operations department. I'd wager that the Captain was kept in the loop, but not solicited for possible resolutions to the problem. They were at the gate, doors open, thinking is likely to have been along the lines of: It's an issue for ground staff to handle.

The downer is, of course, that it's the PiC being named in the claim, not the faceless agents working the gate and in OPS.

This is something very worth keeping in mind: Even if the agreed SOP is to let ground handle issues relating to passengers, cargo and mail up to the point where the door is closed, decisions made outside the direct influence of the PiC during this phase, and perhaps without even keeping him/her informed, may not absolve him/her of legal 'guilt'.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:58
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 406
Which makes one wonder when the airline is going to sue the rent-a-cops for the reputational damage resulting from their criminal action ("we never told them to beat the guy up FFS").
Yes there will be plenty of finger pointing. Which is why they are all joined in this action as co-defendents.

Lawyers dream of this bit - when infighting breaks out among defendants. It simply doesn't get any better.
slats11 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 12:59
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,657
This is something very worth keeping in mind: Even if the agreed SOP is to let ground handle issues relating to passengers, cargo and mail up to the point where the door is closed, decisions made outside the direct influence of the PiC during this phase, and perhaps without even keeping him/her informed, may not absolve him/her of legal 'guilt'
Good point...might hopefully even make some airlines reconsider their policies (official or otherwise) regarding keeping Flight Crew "in the loop" during the boarding/loading process...
wiggy is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:03
  #768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
As soon as one incident happens we here of more and more similar stories:

That time passengers were told to give up their seats for United's CEO and his family - LA Times

Somthing big needs to happen with United, they deserve to lose all of their customers. How they still have any I do not know. Some serious changes are needed at UA to bring these customers back. It's easier to keep existing passengers than it is the attract new ones.
CCGE29 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:15
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 38
Posts: 129
The petition claims that the CVR recording is in the possession of one or both of the respondents.... If the CVR was recording during the incident, there is a chance that the recording during the incident time was taken from the CVR and preserved. likewise, depending on the flight time, the CVR of the flight from ORD to Louisville may have been preserved upon arrival as there no doubt would have been discussion about the incident on the FD during the cruise. The question also is whether or not that is admissable in court. Is that possible?
JumpJumpJump is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:24
  #770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,657
If the CVR was recording during the incident, there is a chance that the recording during the incident time was taken from the CVR and preserved. likewise, depending on the flight time, the CVR of the flight from ORD to Louisville may have been preserved upon arrival as there no doubt would have been discussion about the incident on the FD during the cruise.
Someone would have to "order" the CVR to be pulled and TBH until the fit hit the shan on youtube a day or two post the event I doubt anyone would have said - "hey, we'd better pull the CVR off the aircraft just in case"...IMHO chances are by now anything said during or re the incident has been overwritten, possibly several times, but I guess it's worth an ask.

As for admissablity - no idea, it's the States...
wiggy is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:34
  #771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
WC,
The most admired airlines in the world - Business Insider
This would be history. The reasons given for selection seem to have evaporated in an instant, wouldn't you say?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:37
  #772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by framer View Post
Why would you bother with call-off contracts ( you'd have to audit them regularly as well) when the whole thing can be fixed by offering a few hundred bucks to the pax to voluntarily disembark? It's cheap.
It's the final(?) layer in a layered contingency plan. We've established that for a short-notice DH aircrew demand the airline have no legal right to insist that a reserved/confirmed fare-paying passenger give up their seat either under Title 14 or the airline's CoC (as currently written). So if the need arises your plan would start with an escalating set of options to see if one can be induced to volunteer:

1. Upgrade to 1st class on the next flight in a few hours, with first class lounge until then

2. As (1) but with a free meal in the best restaurant at/near the airport

2a. As (2) but with free 5-star overnight accomodation including movies and minibar (where the next flight is the next day)

3. As (2/2a) but with ticket refund.

4. As (3) but with free return ticket on any of that airline's routes instead of the refund - option upgrade to 1st class on that bonus ticket, and/or extra ticket for partner & kids as potential deal closers

5. As (2/2a) but with a cash inducement up to some budget value (staff would need to be trained in how to find the required level here so that they don't all go to the max value.

Now all of that could be handed out as a tick-list to any passengers at the gate who respond to the question "would you be prepared to be bumped to the next flight if we offered some incentives?" You tell them it's a reverse auction - we need four seats so the lowest four bids win! You then collect in the forms and I would expect that MOST of the time you'd be able to select the winners in a matter of minutes - especially if you had the braincells to prepare by knowing when the next available flight with seats available actually was and had briefed it as you handed out the forms.

But you can't absolutely guarrantee it. You have no right to demand, and there will always be the time when half the fl;ight are all travelling to the same wedding and the other half are all due in court two hours after the flight lands to answer the same charges of election fraud (or WHY) and no amount of inducement in money, hotels, call-girls or free tickets will change their minds. So you need an ultimate contingency, and that is when you'd consider flying the DH crews in a chartered aeroplane.

But by this stage it's getting urgent, and you don't want to have to waste time negotiating rates and getting some senior bean-counter off the golf course to sign the purchase requisition. You want an established process that simply sends an email to each of the operators on the call-off contract to find who can fulfill the urgent demand. You choose the one that best suits the need and that's it. The small operator just submits an invoice for the pre-agreed amount under the established contract and gets paid after the usual 30 days (or whatever). No need for costly and time-wasting commercial actions or authorisation.

We do it with hire cars, stationary supplies, building repairs etc and this would just be another one.
PDR1 is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 13:58
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 222
@PDR1 it could be simpler - make it that by law, compensation for denied boarding resulting in delay more than X hours, must be paid and shall be no less than Y (5k could be a good start). Similar to EU261 but with figures suitable for the US.
pax2908 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:24
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,594
Strange nobody has thought of that before ...

250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:35
  #775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 97
Based on this incident I predict congress will act. This is low hanging fruit for members on both sides of the aisle to look good to their constituents. Please remember that more than half of congressional representatives are ex-attorneys. I predict a passenger bill of rights law that will include:
1) no involuntary bumping for crew movement
2) required cash (not voucher) compensation for involuntary bumping - possibly as much as $10,000.
3) prohibition of law enforcement involvement for non-safety related actions.

Congress gets involved when industries fail police themselves and abuse the general public. This incident was like throwing chum into the middle of a school of sharks. The feeding frenzy will commence.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:38
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 97
I also see criminal exposure here, especially for the rent-a-cops. I can see the DA filing charges for:
1) false arrest
2) assault and battery
3) assault under color of authority
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:44
  #777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:47
  #778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 64
Posts: 0
This incident will make things a whole lot more interesting in the future. Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. Now what? Given a weak crew an entire aircraft and those on the ground might will end up paying the price for an altercation at 30,000'. The contractual issue must be separated from the legal issue. This means that if I say to Passenger X "you are not flying" then Passenger X gets offf. By all means make a legal claim against my company for my descison, but there never be democracy or mob rule on an aircraft, if for no other reason than there are only two sets of controls.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 14:54
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 73
Posts: 1,243
There seems to be a grey area in that there must be limits to what are 'lawful commands' from the crew, and except where safety and security is concerned, it seems a bit dubious that commands resulting in breach of contract would be lawful.
radeng is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 15:02
  #780 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Beeb has announced that the daughter of Dr Dao is about to give a Press conference.

NOW!


Watch live.
G-CPTN 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.