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 14th Apr 2017, 09:43
  #921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 971
I happen to agree with the union...Dr. Dao would likely be dead from either multiple tasings, or a GSW. UA's pilots union may be outraged, but their head is clearly up their back passage.
It is the UA pilots union that created this situation, assault and actual bodily harm, from what I have read they are so inflexible, they insist that crew positioning/deadheading must be by scheduled service thus eliminating any other option for all the UA ground staff concerned, they couldn't possibly charter an aircraft or even a limousine to move the crew because UA pilots union had outlawed such an option.

When are these people going to ever learn to stop digging holes for themselves?
Harry Wayfarers is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 09:51
  #922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Originally Posted by India Four Two View Post
... but it is always a potentially intimidating experience, given that the Immigration officer has ultimate authority and I have essentially no rights.
Particularly the way one guy had hand hovering over his gun, obviously just dying for an excuse to use it.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 10:02
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 587
Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers View Post
It is the UA pilots union that created this situation, assault and actual bodily harm, from what I have read they are so inflexible, they insist that crew positioning/deadheading must be by scheduled service thus eliminating any other option for all the UA ground staff concerned, they couldn't possibly charter an aircraft or even a limousine to move the crew because UA pilots union had outlawed such an option.

When are these people going to ever learn to stop digging holes for themselves?
In fairness to the UA unions, their attitudes surely reflect the management they have to deal with.
Things can be improved, Gordon Bethune proved it when he resurrected Continental, but it requires a focus on people even ahead of profit.,
etudiant is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 10:16
  #924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
Interesting comments from the professor of law.

But isn't the captain the one responsible - not wanting to pass blame on any particular person of course - there have been plenty of instances when captains have asked pax to leave the aircraft on the ground.

It seems that while the union are morally correct, isn't the captain the one who is technically and legally responsible?
newfoundglory is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 10:22
  #925 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,483
. But isn't the captain the one responsible -
The Captain is not involved in the boarding process, nor responsible
For how the boarding goes.
TowerDog is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 10:43
  #926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
It seems that airlines (in general) have not been particularly bothered about terminating contracts, using Captain's authority and law enforcement if necessary.

I would suggest that any court will take a very dim view of this behaviour indeed and, if proven to be the case, punitive damages (in the high millions, or hundreds of millions) would actually be appropriate.

This is another good example: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-at...170009715.html

I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat. If the CoC were changed to make this possible, I think that would be an unfair contractual term which I hope a court would disregard in future cases like this.
newfoundglory is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 10:56
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,979
Originally Posted by newfoundglory View Post
I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat.
You can under certain circumstances (passenger is drunk, aggressive, violent, etc), though those clearly didn't apply in this case.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 11:01
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 902
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Particularly the way one guy had hand hovering over his gun, obviously just dying for an excuse to use it.
If you had spent any time carrying a sidearm in confined, crowded spaces you would know to keep your hand over it to stop it snagging on something​ and more importantly, to guard against someone trying to snatch it.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 11:18
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain. Captains that I knew on hearing of the problem in its early stages would have made it their business to get involved and thus avoided the need for forcible evac. Having had the situ explained to him by the Captain in a conversation between two reasonable people, the Dr might well have agreed to leave, under protest. If he didnt agree, I believe the Captains I knew would have announced that he must be allowed to remain and that one of the other solutions be adopted instead.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 11:30
  #930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Limousin, France
Age: 58
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by robdean View Post
Here's a blogged analysis of the case by a Professor of Law (at Cornell):

Dorf on Law: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger
Thank you for that link. The article gives an important legal clarification to the term 'deny-boarding' and possibly explains why a number of professionals on here continue to misinterpret the phrase as 'refuse to transport'.

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.
WhatAStory is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 11:54
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by p.j.m View Post
When you looked at the video, he was pulled out of his seat, and his face smashed into the armrest on the other side of the aisle. This would be when the broken teeth, nose, blood and his unconsciousness came from. Dragging him along the aisle would have been the only option as he was unconscious from that impact.
Oh, I don't know, I think most basic first aid courses suggest a whole range of more appropriate care strategies for looking after the injured. DR ABC comes to mind, he could have had spinal damage or breathing trouble, anything. Duty of care?
omnis is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 11:58
  #932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 225
Harry,
UA pilots union had nothing to do here. It was a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines.
And I think the captain could have prevented the violent removal of the pax.
The Range is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 12:06
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by newfoundglory View Post
I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat.
Absolutely you can deplane an individual passenger. If they contravene the CoC.

Or you can deplane an entire load if there's some reason to do so (Crew goes sick, plane goes sick, weather goes sick, bomb threat etc).

What you cannot do is single out an individual pax for deplaning if they haven't contravened the CoC and there's no other term in the contract permitting this to occur. That seems to be the situation here. (And was the situation in that other story which is doing the rounds concerning the first class United passenger who was threatened with the Dr. Dao treatment if they refused to vacate their already-taken seat for a 'higher priority' first class pax who had shown up at the last minute).
Ranger One is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 12:19
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
I completely agree that drunk, violent and aggressive behaviour can and should be removed (but this can be dealt with under other areas of the law). If the plane is tech or there is a security incident, then that seems pretty obvious.

But the CoC is cloudy area.

How do you know if the CoC are enforceable terms and not unfair terms?

How do you know if a court would decide the terms had been breached?

You don't.

So in minor cases, would it not be wiser the carry the pax and then seek redress against the pax in court after the event?
newfoundglory is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 12:55
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post
The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain.
I can't tell you how much I want to believe that.
Amadis of Gaul is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 13:09
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Why should he have listened to anyone? I just don't get this lets worship airline employees and let them undermine our own self respect.

The doc was entirely within his rights, shame on all those involved. How do 3 burly guys bring themselves to treat any human being like that, never mind a 69 year old one? As for those heroes supporting the henchmens' actions, it says a lot about you.
Loggerheads is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 13:14
  #937 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,046
It has always been my understanding that captains total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.
parabellum is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 13:28
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 195
The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain...
Many regional flight crew are early in their careers, and are a ways away from Robert Staak or John Wayne-like Sky God status.
One can appreciate a certain hesitation prior to jumping headlong into a potentially sticky situation, especially considering the sacrifices made to achieve that status as flight crew, and the questionable jurisdiction and utility of becoming involved.
421dog is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 14:29
  #939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by The Range View Post
Harry,
UA pilots union had nothing to do here. It was a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines.
And I think the captain could have prevented the violent removal of the pax.
Were the deadheading crew, for which this passenger was so violently and illegally removed, were that crew United crew or Republic crew?
Harry Wayfarers is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 14:40
  #940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by Dave Reid
Originally Posted by WingNut60 It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.

I was wondering about that, too.
United have 5 ORD-SDF flights most days.

Of course it may just have been that the intervening flights were full, but coincidentally (or not) only 2 of those 5 UAs (the flight the doctor was on and the afternoon one they wanted to bump him onto) are operated by Republic.

The other three are flown by different codeshare partners (1 x Skywest, 2 x Trans States).

Does anyone know if there could have been some revenue-related reason why United would have avoided giving him a seat on, say, the late evening flight ? If so, then we'd be looking at United's inflexibility having started off the whole farrago.

Having said that, even if there were no earlier seats available, it beggars belief that United clearly couldn't care less about the impact of delaying a passenger nearly 24 hours.
There have been numerous instances reported of passengers being bumped in the USA onto the "next flight" which turns out, once they are got out of the queue and over to the desk, to be one actually several flights away, at the point of low demand the following day. I, too, would find it unlikely that the next FIVE flights on United from Chicago to an obscure Kentucky destination (sorry if you are from Louisville) are all sold out up to 24 hours beforehand, because among other things USA yield management systems don't work that way.

Passengers told they are being put on the "next flight", in practice means the next one with availability at a low fare bucket, to minimise any revenue loss. Meanwhile, the intervening flights are still available to new bookers at higher fares.

I think there was a bit of a clue about this when Munoz (is he still supposedly 'in charge' ?), in one of his several, rambling, contradictory pronouncements, said that among other points of detail there would be a detailed review of the way in which rebookings of denied boarding passengers were handled.
WHBM 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.