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 10th Apr 2017, 20:13
  #61 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,340
All I can say, after 40 years in the professional aviation business, is that I'm appalled by these UA thugs.
The man bought a ticket, paid for up front. As far as I can see, it's a legally binding contract. He saw his need to be on that particular flight as greater than that of the airline staff, who could have used other means. For him to be assaulted in that way was totally uncalled for.

United Airlines? They can stuff it.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:15
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
It was a short flight. For the amount of money they were going to have to offer to the offloaded PAX why wouldn't the airline just charter a small jet and move the crew that way?
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:17
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 322
What's the significance of him being Asian, 69 and male?

If he was white, female and 25 would that make a difference?

'How was work, honey?'

'Same old same old: just beat the crap out of some old foreign guy who wanted to go to work.'
SLF3 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:20
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Don't equate the man being pulled off the plane as a failure of protocol. 3 of the 4 people to be removed did so, the fourth didn't comply with lawful order from the police officer and you saw the result. The aircraft isn't a public place, if those responsible and with the authority to remove the pax did so properly, then it's incumbent upon the pax to leave.

Looking at what we know at the moment, the jury is still out on a number of assumptions you have made. For instance the Department of Transport rules say:


DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't.

Equally:
DOT rules require airlines to seek out people who are willing to give up their seats for compensation before bumping anyone involuntarily. Here's how this works. At the check-in or boarding area, airline employees will look for volunteers when it appears that the flight has been oversold.

What marks this case out is that the pax was already on the plane and had a seat. So he was being forceably removed to accommodate someone else.
UA is going to have to provide some really strong reasons, in accordance with the policy, the DoT mandatorily requires, to justify their action.


We all wait with baited breath to hear their justification.
ExGrunt is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:20
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: oakland
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by ExXB View Post
From reports they got to $800 and a hotel.

CFR 250.5 fixes compensation for denied bording at 400% of the fare, with a maximum of $1350. (Can be less if they get rerouted to arrive within an hour or two)

Perhaps if they fixed it at $10,000, (not a percentage of the fare) there would never be another denied boarding.
Yup, let's be clear what happened. United made a simple financial trade off that they could do under the law, rather than raise the price to a point where there would be takers.
hitchens97 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:24
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
indeed. However it does raise the question why the police were called?
The police were called because the passenger refused to leave. The pax doesn't have some absolute right to remain on private property. Thisis UA's property, if you're booted out of someone's business and refuse, do you honestly think management is just going to say, ok, you can stay.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:27
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
all wait with baited breath to hear their justification.
It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:28
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
But they invited him onto their 'property' in the first place.

It would be interesting to see if airline such as UA were regularly off-loading passengers.

West Coast - clearly it is business. Wiki Gerald Ratner.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:29
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.
Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:32
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,264
The police were called because the passenger refused to leave. The pax doesn't have some absolute right to remain on private property. Thisis UA's property, if you're booted out of someone's business and refuse, do you honestly think management is just going to say, ok, you can stay.
Yes. I can envisage a sensible solution where you do just that and look for another solution. Sometimes the "red mist" or " I must show you who is the boss" is provoked to the forefront and the result deteriorates into something like this. There are times when you lose the battle to win the war. In a customer focused business this often happens.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:33
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
onto their 'property' in the first place.
That has zero to do with this situation. The company made a business decision, sucks for the pax, sucks from a PR perspective, but it isn't a matter that what happened was wrong. The only one in the wrong was the pax.

Name one thing from a legality perspective UA did wrong.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:33
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by HEMS driver View Post
Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.
That would be the total melt-down for UA PR.
gearlever is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:36
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
It's not as salacious as you make it out to be, a DH crew needed to be on the plane. Moving crews, causing pax to be bumped is a daily occurrence. You may not like it, but that's business.
Well, lets see. For an airline to have any business at all pax must be willing to pay fares.
If an airline send a message that us fare paying passengers are just scum to be beaten up for their corporate convenience then that makes our fare buying decisions easy when considering where to spend our money.
ExGrunt is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:36
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Yes. I can envisage a sensible solution where you do just that and look for another solution. Sometimes the "red mist" or " I must show you who is the boss" is provoked to the forefront and the result deteriorates into something like this. There are times when you lose the battle to win the war. In a customer focused business this often happens.
You're mixing elements. This is about legality. UA will take its lumps from a PR pov, what they did from outward appearance isn't a legality one. The pax is the one who should be worrying about that, not UA.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:38
  #75 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,340
West Coast, please be so kind as mention which airline you work for.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:38
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
Hitchens has it spot on. But PR boo-boos are UA's standard fare. This organisation are probably run by gifted people who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. Here is another classic. They fail to realise that it is cheaper to cough up what appears large sums of cash on the day rather than exorbitant amounts later on. This will only cost a few million. If the powers that be took their hands out of their trousers and considered real life they might save themselves millions in the long run. Serves them right.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:41
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,095
This 'doctor' doesn't appear to be mentally stable as he races down the aisle after reboarding the plane and chants 'I have to go home, I have to go home':

https://twitter.com/Tyler_Bridges/st...28695360663552
Airbubba is online now  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:43
  #78 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,340
Airbubba, I would imagine that being smacked in the mouth and dragged off an aircraft by thugs would upset many people.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:45
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,264
This is about legality
only within the appropriate forum. In the wider world it involves a great deal more. In a customer focused business environment it is a potential disaster.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2017, 20:48
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Waiting for proof from UAL that a crew was being re-positioned, and not just a commuting crew that were being accommodated by their co-workers.
If you're hanging your assumptions on that, I predict you'll be disappointed. I've displaced pax many times as a DH crew member. I've been commuting for 17 of my 19 years in the airlines (not UA) have never once been accommodated over a paying pax when not on company assignment. Not once. The thought of it happening to cover 4 Pax is ludicrious. The contract airline has aircraft that are crewed by 4, so 4 pax being removed is consistent with a DH assignment. If you were airline, you'd know how improbable your conspiracy theory is. First, there's no love lost between gate agents and crews and second, the agent would be the one to have to deal with 4 denied boarding school and have to justify it down line during audits.

You can cling to the idea or accept that your idea isn't a starter.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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