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, 17:11
  #801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,981
Originally Posted by Capot View Post
I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them.
No-shows most certainly do cost the airlines money. Why else would they devote so much creative energy to trying to minimise them ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:14
  #802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Capot View Post
Says who? An airline can do what it likes; it's the repercussions that should cause it to think twice.
It is in violation of United's contract with the ticketed passengers (CofC). To say that they "can do what it likes" is silly. They "can," as having the ability, but "may" they?" No. United contracted with Dr. Dao and all of the other passengers, and United's actions are in conflict with that contract.

Just because airlines have been pulling this bovine scatology for decades doesn't make it legal or right.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:15
  #803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
I think that overbooking due to no-shows is easy. If you bought the ticket and never made it to the airport you eat the ticket. The issue comes when the no-shows are due to missed connections because of airline or weather delays that are not the PAX fault. There will always be a certain number of these, and the airlines can't just void the tickets in those cases. A no-show will result along with the need to accommodate the customer on a later flight. I believe this was the original justification for over-booking.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:21
  #804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.
That remains to be seen.

And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
slats11 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:22
  #805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,203
Other than citing the basis of claims for injuries suffered, the lead lawyer on today's news conference (see above) was well spoken, speculative in his facts and self serving.

That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:28
  #806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens
I think United's CEO, along with an overwhelming social media and the 24/7 news cycle, let that horse out of the barn days ago.
HEMS driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:42
  #807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 841
Agreed!

All the lawyers for the family have to do now is present the facts.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:43
  #808 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 8
According to today's press conference, Dr Dao lost two front teeth, has a broken nose and a significant concussion and damage to his sinuses that will require reconstructive surgery.

United passenger dragged off flight will file lawsuit, lawyer says - CNN.com
wendyg is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 17:52
  #809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
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 also file a complaint of blackmail against the airline employees just to annoy...Because they were demanding that you allow breach of contract under threat.
radeng is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:04
  #810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Capot View Post

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.
Sure there is. The business model (and therefore the low ticket prices that attract customers) is dependent upon selling at a load factor of, (say for example) 110%. If regulation forces this back to 100%, then that's (approximately, given different prices for different classes of service) a 10% gut punch to top-line revenue.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:08
  #811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:09
  #812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Claybird View Post
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.
Had this passenger done as you suggest, then nobody would have heard of the incident, and, although he might personally have received adequate compensation in court, the underlying problems would never have been addressed.

Rosa Parks could have just complied and moved to the back of the bus, too.

Fixing pernicious institutional abuse often requires a considerable level of disobedience, often at considerable personal sacrifice to the individuals who are willing to stand up for everyone's rights.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:16
  #813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by Piper_Driver View Post
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
Agree entirely.
This has the potential to rewrite the rules for passenger management by the US airline industry.
The deadline imho for United to settle this is April 20th, when their responses to the Senate committee are due. If the case is still dragging on at that point, politicians will make the rules different. It will take industry some time to adjust to whatever changes are required, so a period on uncertainty.
Wall Street does not reward uncertainty.
etudiant is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:19
  #814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Capot View Post
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.
For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.

Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.

Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:20
  #815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,981
Originally Posted by Piper_Driver View Post
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
The attorney made it clear at the press conference that they were only going to be representing Dr Dao, and that there was no intention of initiating a class action.

That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:27
  #816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials View Post
For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.

Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.

Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
I'm also Ok with the practice of over-booking and voluntary compensation. The customer can make a choice that is market driven. When a lottery is held for involuntary "re-accommodation" the amount IMHO needs to be much larger. It can easily cost me (or my employer) far more than the $800 voucher (I also contend the voucher is inadequate in any amount) if I don't make it to my destination on time. If I lose this money due to Force Majure that is one thing. To do so because of someone I've contracted with to provide me with transportation has reneged on their end of the contract is not the same. In that case the payment must be proportional to the damage.

Last edited by Piper_Driver; 13th Apr 2017 at 19:54.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:28
  #817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 386
Airlines must learn lessons from safety and commercial problems in their own and other airlines.

In this case clearly the problem of the airline. At the point of forced offloading that the airline allowed to become
violent, there was either a policy that allowed such serious actions, there was insufficient policy or none. Hard to
visualise a fault other than the airline.

The solutions include
Immediately compensate pax and not proceed with criminal prosecution
Publish overbooking and full offloading procedure including D/H crew

Of course all safety and commercial policies need review.
autoflight is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:30
  #818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
The attorney made it clear at the press conference that they were only going to be representing Dr Dao, and that there was no intention of initiating a class action.

That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.
The class action will come after the courts decide that the practice of bumping paying passengers in favor of DH crew is in violation of the CoCs.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:30
  #819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,263
I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
Good, that should help!
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2017, 18:36
  #820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,149
slats11,
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Since the early 90s, Bermuda-based insurance carriers have also offered policyholders a separate stand-alone policy to protect against awards for punitive damages where the domestic "wrapped" liability policy is otherwise prohibited from providing punitive damages coverage due to public policy, statutory, or regulatory considerations. The policy is offered on an indemnification basis and is triggered by a judgment in a court of law.

This coverage would come into play big time for an airline, lets say, where there is a major tragedy due to negligence by employees or management.

However, in this instance it isn't a loss resulting from a domestic crash resulting in the deaths of hundreds of victims.

It is this consideration as to why I believe United will do their very best to settle ASAP with all parties concerned and avoid going to court. They are a large corporation and should be able to reach an agreed upon settlement with the Doctor and or other passengers should there be a class action suit. United needs to get out of the limelight as quickly as possible, objective #1...
Turbine D 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.