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, 16:04
  #781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,973
Originally Posted by HEMS driver View Post
Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.
I know that, I was just answering the OP's question re IDB compensation regulations.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:09
  #782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
I know that, I was just answering the OP's question re IDB compensation regulations.
Gotcha.

More discussion about the airport security force:

The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.


"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:10
  #783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.
You must be a lawyer; to the rest of the world not being allowed to board and being slung off just after you did board are pretty much the same thing.

The alternative course of action to forcing people off an aircraft by bodily hauling them off with a posse of thugs is to simply raise the ante until sufficient "volunteers" are found. Compared to the cost of delays, bad PR, buying alternative flights, etc etc there is almost no figure that is too high; if it had cost $40,000 to get 4 people off that UA aircraft it was still the cheapest solution. And trust me, I could have got 4 volunteers for a lot less than that.

Overbooking was, let's remind ourselves, a necessary evil in the good 'ole days that I knew, when a no-show was accommodated on a later flight, thus losing the carrier some money. Possibly.

Nowadays, THERE IS NO EXCUSE. If all the seats on the flight are sold, they are all paid for, no refunds allowed for a no-show. There is no need whatsoever to overbook to protect the revenue. Overbooking is simply a nasty con-trick to get 110% (or whatever, you know what I mean) of the seats paid for, most of the time. Regulators should get on top of this now, and stop placating the operators by ignoring it.
Capot is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:11
  #784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
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'.
I don't think this will be a problem. Passengers aren't completely stupid. They can recognize a safety-related issue when they see one, like an unstable or drunk individual shouting and screaming, groping other pax, threatening the air crew, etc. If I'm sitting in a seat behind someone like that, I want them off the plane ASAP (or subdued in-flight), and I'll bet every other passenger does too. It's basic self-preservation.

The fact that this incident had nothing to do with flight safety is why it blew up the way it did.
Photonic is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:13
  #785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 26
Press Conference (Live Stream) with Dr. Daos lawyer and daughter:
LIVE STREAM: David Dao Press Conference On United Airline | Heavy.com
MrsDoubtfire is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:18
  #786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Capot View Post
You must be a lawyer; to the rest of the world not being allowed to board and being slung off just after you did board are pretty much the same thing.
No, and you apparently haven't been following the conversation. "Before boarding," and "boarded" are important distinctions.

The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:20
  #787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
From press conference:

Dr. Dao's injuries:
  • Concussion
  • Two broken teeth
  • Serious broken nose
  • Will require reconstructive surgery
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:22
  #788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 249
And sinus damage
k3k3 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:28
  #789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,149
Claybird,
That also means that the matter can - and should, in my humble opinion - be pursued (on different level, that of passenger liability) based on federal statutes involving disregarding commands by federal officers, declining to act upon crew instructions and disrupting interstate commerce by keeping the aircraft on the ground because of said actions.
Opening pandora's box? Not going to happen. Will never get to a trial jury. Officers involved weren't federal, just airport employees. The airline and airport authority will settle out of court. Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.

Last edited by Turbine D; 13th Apr 2017 at 16:29. Reason: added words
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:34
  #790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,085
So he was duffed up even worse than it appears on the films. The lawyer and his daughter were quite articulate in the press conference. I wonder if United will try to settle this out of court? Either way it is going to cost them millions for sending in the boot boys.
LTNman is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:36
  #791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Will never get to a trial jury.
Possibly, unless Dr. Dao is not looking exclusively for financial compensation. The longer this drags on the more United will suffer. That may be an attractive bonus for him as well as getting the compensation he will win anyway.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:36
  #792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
So he was duffed up even worse than it appears on the films. The lawyer and his daughter were quite articulate in the press conference. I wonder if United will try to settle this out of court? Either way it is going to cost them millions for sending in the boot boys.
Articulate indeed. Four of his kids are physicians, as is his wife.

Last edited by HEMS driver; 13th Apr 2017 at 16:51.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:38
  #793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 65
Posts: 59
Unfortunately the lead lawyer keeps on about over-booking and a need to get a handle on its practice (not intrinsic to the case) and even expanded his comments to the need for universal "service with a smile" in all industries.
meadowrun is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:44
  #794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Mercer Island, WA
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
Claybird,

Opening pandora's box? Not going to happen. Will never get to a trial jury. Officers involved weren't federal, just airport employees. The airline and airport authority will settle out of court. Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.
Yea, I don't disagree a trial is not going to look good for United, nor do I think they wish to have one. They will settle.

And just to clarify some things to the SLF who make comments about some of us being Gods or what not:

I also don't disagree with what everyone else says here: that this kind of behavior demonstrated by the officers is condemnable and probably more.

Yea, I'm pretty sure too that the company could have resolved this problem in a more professional, tactful and quiet matter. They should have.

I do disagree, however, on whether he had a right to resist like this.

But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court. You just don't put up this kind of temper tantrum on an airplane, even when you're right and I'm pretty sure this passenger was in the right.

THAT'S my objection to the whole thing.
Claybird is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:48
  #795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 861
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
...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. ...
Not a problem. Unstable, belligerent passengers who the crew believe is a threat to safety will still be removed just as they have always been.

What won't happen is the 67-year disabled mother who is flying to see an ailing relative and minding her own business getting dragged off because someone decided the seat was needed for crew.

Safety won't be compromised at all.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:48
  #796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
I was curious about the Chicago Aviation Security Officers and found that the city has openings for 9. Among their duties:
  • Arrests and detains individuals found violating or suspected of violating city, state and federal laws, restraining individuals using handcuffs or other restraining devices
  • Contacts and coordinates with Chicago Police Officers for the transfer, transporting and processing of arrested or detained individuals
  • Responds to incidents and disturbances including family and civil disputes occurring on airport grounds, assessing the situation to identify safety factors, securing the area and requesting needed backup and assistance
  • Establishes and maintains working relationships with airport tenants to address security issues and concerns and follows up with tenants regarding the status of complaints
  • Ability to exert muscle force and use appropriate control holds to apprehend, subdue and restrain individuals
  • Requires at least 60 semester (or 90 quarter) hours of credit from an accredited college or university OR a certificate from a military, federal, state or local Law Enforcement Officer’s Training Program OR two (2) years of Law Enforcement experience.
  • New employees must successfully complete the minimum standards set forth by the Illinois Local Law Enforcement Officer's Training Board and be certified by the State of Illinois as a Law Enforcement Officer
The full job description is available at this page, following the "City of Chicago Jobs" link
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/e...s/jobsnow.html

Last edited by sardak; 13th Apr 2017 at 16:52. Reason: missing word
sardak is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:53
  #797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.

"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
After a crisis does seem a strange time to be asking questions about limits of jurisdiction and authority.

So we have damning video substantiated by an objective list of personal injuries sustained
The airline CEO has said the pax was not to blame
There is some legal opinion that the CofC did not allow involuntary deplaning
And now the City Council is wondering whether the officers had jurisdiction and authority

I bet whoever threatened LEO didn't realise the ice they were standing on was this thin.
slats11 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 16:55
  #798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.

Are you sure? This damage was not an accident. Could it not be c,aimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the insured? This is like throwing a brick through your own window in a rage and claiming on your insurance it was an accident.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:01
  #799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 511
I maintain that manhandling a 69 year old frail man in such a manner for no good reason is criminal.

I think United won't be able to avoid being in court, even if the Doc settles, because there are other issues that have been brought to the forefront. Godzilla (the govt) has awakened .
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:05
  #800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,421
The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.
Says who? An airline can do what it likes; it's the repercussions that should cause it to think twice.

But you are right, I had missed the point about the incident arising because they wanted the seats for crew. Even more inexcusable, and I stick by my post that they should simply have upped the ante until volunteers appeared. If the choice is that or a charter for the crew it's a no-brainer.

And even if over-booking was not the problem in this instance, it's still a pernicious practice which should be stamped on by the regulators. I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them. If a carrier wants to gamble and overbook anyway, think of the excess revenue against the occasional need to spend $1,000s to "volunteers" to get them out of the hole they've dug.

I get the impression that they simply ordered these people off without any good offer being tried first, and assaulted them when they objected. But I suppose someone will tell me I'm wrong about that.

Let's not forget, too, that this incident is in the context of the accelerating tendancy of passenger contact staff in the air and on the ground to believe that their role is a disciplinary one, combining a contempt for passengers with abusing them at every opportunity. Of course, as air travel has become relatively cheaper to the point of stupidity, so have passengers become more badly-behaved and disruptive.

This leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the cure lies in charging much higher prices, and paying a lot more for good passenger contact staff. But I don't expect PPRuNe to agree.

Last edited by Capot; 13th Apr 2017 at 17:19.
Capot 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.