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, 20:09
  #981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 858
Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?

If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 20:18
  #982 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,947
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
Why should any law abiding passenger be fearful of bodily harm?
ZFT is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 20:20
  #983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The North
Posts: 158
And to add to ZFT's point UA made over $2bn in profit last year.
CCGE29 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 20:25
  #984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
Somebody had to stand up for the rest of us. I'm glad he had the courage to do so. Progress is made by those who resist unjust authority, not by those who acquiesce.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 20:26
  #985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
"..getting away with murder.."? Hardly. Collectively, airlines barely make a profit. In the short term, nothing good ever comes from resisting force from authorities. If the doctor got up and walked off the aircraft, nothing would be heard. No harm done. His patients would have been looked after sooner or later.

In the long term, the doctor, (passenger), will benefit greatly from the lawsuit, and future passengers may benefit from legislation and/or policy changes.
In an unrestrained competition, monopoly or oligopoly emerges. That is the US airline industry today.
Monopolies become abusive until they are reined in by adjustments in the law.
That is the US experience and I'd expect it to happen in this case as well if it goes to trial.
Imho, the airline industry would be well served to come up very quickly with some new rules to ensure minimally adequate treatment of their passengers. Legislated requirements can be onerous and nonsensical, hence best avoided.

Meanwhile, cudos to the doctor. He showed more courage than the entire load of passively videotaping passengers and crew.
As Franklin said, those who would abandon liberty for the promise of safety will have neither. The doctor seems to be the only one on board who took that to heart.
etudiant is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:00
  #986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY View Post
Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?

If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up.
O Please, stop with this nonsense. I would be waiting with holded breath that the gate would close out the flight and shut the damm door so I could go home and not have to fly the 0530 flight back to Chicago.
It's not like this crew just wanted to go to SDF for a good time. They were a either a pre-scheduled deadhead on reserved seats that were obviously released before they got to the gate or it was a last minute reserve crew needed to save a cancellation on the other end.
Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court.
cappt is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:01
  #987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Photonic View Post
It's simple. In a safety-related issue like this (which was NOT the case with Dr. Dao), you offer apologies, sufficient compensation, and every effort to get that displaced pax where they need to go in a reasonable timeframe. Something like this:

"We're very sorry, but your seat is broken and we didn't spot it before boarding. It would be unsafe for you to fly in that seat. Here's $300 cash in partial compensation, a hotel room if necessary, and we will make every effort to get you to your destination ASAP, even if it means buying you a ticket on another carrier."

Increase the offer if it means the pax was traveling with spouse and kids, if they don't want to fly separately. In a clear safety-related incident like that, with sufficient compensation, I think the number of pax you'd have trouble with would be extremely low.
So let me get this right. It's not OK to beat the s___ out of pax for a nonsafety-related reason, but if s/he fails to get off the plane for a safety-related reason (even one that is not immediate), you can use force? And for an important safety-related reason, you still need to offer unlimited amounts of money -- rather than just saying "get off and we'll give you IDB?
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:06
  #988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Kewbick
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
At 69 years old most people would rightly expect to be treated with a degree of respect not afforded to younger people. At 69, you would most certainly not expect some brute to grab you, break your nose and drag you from the airline seat which you had legitimately purchased.
Carjockey is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:06
  #989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
I don't know what world you live in, but on my planet the prospect of bodily harm resulting from a commercial dispute would never have dreamt of occurring to me.


Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:08
  #990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court.
It really is completely beyond my comprehension that some people don't seem to be able to get their heads round this very simple and completely correct analysis.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:18
  #991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southport
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
I don't know what world you live in, but on my planet the prospect of bodily harm resulting from a commercial dispute would never have dreamt of occurring to me.


Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe.
This is the thing, and agreements like TTIP are the same - the rights of the corporation over the rights of the individual. Very worrying.
andytug is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:21
  #992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
It really is completely beyond my comprehension that some people don't seem to be able to get their heads round this very simple and completely correct analysis.
Agree entirely that this debacle is a management failure first and foremost.
That said, such failures are much more likely when there are overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions, as was the case here. United ticket, Republic airplane and crew, who is really in charge?
Clearly management was abrogated to the Airport Security, with predictable results.
etudiant is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:24
  #993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,431
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
The doctor was warned
How do you know that? - is there a recording of him being told "if you don't get up we will smash your face into the armrest and give you concussion and a broken nose and two lost teeth"? - if you know about this recording how come nobody else does?
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:25
  #994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
I am appalled that some people on this thread are arguing about what "boarded" means. Many are stating that a passenger is not boarded until the door is closed. This boggles the mind. If that were the case why would there be separate clauses in the CoC for reasons that a passenger can be offloaded once seated than those for denied boarding.

If I were trying to defend United in this case I wouldn't try that line of reasoning in front of a jury. Unless you re-define the term "boarded" within the document the term boarded will be interpreted by the public, the legal system and anyone without an agenda to mean what it implies. It's like saying "that depends what your definition of is is".

I am sure that if an airline defense attorney tried that in a trial he would be shredded by the plaintiff's attorney. Parsing words like this will only inflame a jury and lead to a higher punitive damage award. When reading the ToC it needs to be interpreted as a layperson would interpret it.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:46
  #995 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
Lockerbie took down Pan Am.
True, but it was the final straw, sadly Pan Am were in serious trouble before Lockerbie, think it came to the surface when they sold off all their hotels, not certain about that though.
parabellum is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:52
  #996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Jay Sata View Post
It appears the bad publicity continues.


United Airlines passenger 'stung by scorpion' on flight - BBC News

United face an uphill battle. When you google United Airlines this story comes up top of the page.
United Airlines passenger ordeal 'worse than fall of Saigon' - BBC News
Nice PR for the stockmarket.

Lockerbie took down Pan Am.
It is astonishing that the UA management is so oblivious to the above facts.
The most elementary PR would be to displace the bad news with some coherent positive response, something that will shift the debate from UA's failure.
Thus far, it is crickets, apart from a meaningless and belated apology, a promise to do better with no specifics and a reversal of the ticket charges for the people on that flight. That does not address the larger issue.
UA is a leader among US airlines and this is their opportunity to lead, to offer a meaningful passenger bill of rights that would address the awful way passengers are currently treated in the US. That is in their own and the entire industries interest. If they wait till the Senate and the DoT act, they and Wall Street may not like the results so much.
etudiant is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 21:59
  #997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,052
Who called the "Law enforcement officers"?
People supposedly, apparently, in the eyes of the passengers, working for UA, irrespective of whom they were actually working for.
UA tickets, UA flight number, UA uniforms, UA logo on the aircraft. "Perception is reality" unfortunately for a lot of juries.
"Asking" the "officers" to remove the passenger and departing the scene does not obsolve them of responsibility.
Also were these "Officers" aware of their jurisdiction and powers? Had they been properly trained in such actions. It would appear not.
A terrible mess. One that could lead to changes in law.
I foresee a bunch of lawyers making big $$$$$$.
High end car dealerships and real estate folks in both Chicago and Washington must be thrilled!
albatross is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 22:03
  #998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Chateau d'If
Posts: 1,994
I am a Brit and not an American, but am a massive fan of your great nation. However, I cannot help but notice one extremely disturbing aspect of American life - wildly out of control law enforcement agencies in all their many forms. What passes for normality in American life among security, immigration, police, sheriffs, constables, DEA officials etc is just mind blowing to people outside the USA. Americans have a deep love for law enforcement, which is fine, but it seems to make them oblivious to the crazy excesses of the various agents who work within the system. They are often staggeringly rude, ill-mannered and objectionable people who feel empowered to do almost anthing they want whilst on duty. The conclusion I have come to is that their training is fundamentally flawed and they are rarely held accountable for their appalling lack of skill in dealing with difficult people situations. I have observed it so often in the countless embarrassing, and frankly shameful, PR disasters that regularly beset US law enforcement that I can come to no other conclusion. It seems to me that this awful incident with United Airlines is yet another example of over-zealous and under-trained security staff who acted like Nazi thugs, and yet somehow believed their behavior was 'reasonable'. I cannot say this could never happen in Europe but I can say it is infinitely less likely due to the enormous constraints put on police and security staff actions compared to the US. Hopefully they will lose their jobs, but I am intrigued that Munos initially tried to justify this, thus showing an astonishing deference to law enforcement and seemingly accepting of their excesses. Somehow he felt an aggravated assault on a 69 year-old doctor was an appropriate response because he was being difficult. The guy himself will make a fortune but it does not deal with the unqualified support so often given to law enforcement by the American middle classes. It is a remarkable, yet very dangerous, phenomenon that seems peculiarly American.
Count of Monte Bisto is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 22:09
  #999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Kewbick View Post
I am not defending United Airlines. The doctor was warned, and then at the point of being dragged, he could have submitted, and walked off the aircraft. He made a decision. Being dragged, in my opinion, is choosing to make a statement. Regardless of his verbal protestations, I think he thought to himself "just how far will these idiots take this?"

Just like Rosa Parks. He made a decision. He will be thought of highly by the travelling public.

He made a decision. What world do you live in? Would you have walked after being warned, or would you sit and choose to be dragged. Just saying..


He made a decision. And he won. With bruises. Personally, I would have walked off the aircraft. I am not that stubborn to risk bodily harm. I do not want to be a martyr. If a police office asks me to get out of my car, I will not say "What the f**k for?" I will get out of my car. That is the kind of world I live in.
You do not know how things played out on the aircraft. Maybe he had no explicit warning, maybe no indication at all that he was about to be physically (and violently) siezed. Moreover, a broken nose, missing teeth and concussion is more than a passenger could reasonably expect even from being physically restrained and removed: I'm sure he did not 'choose' that option.

This passenger had no need to ask why he was being told to leave: he knew he had been arbitrarily selected, through no fault of his own, to be thrown off the flight for reasons of commercial convenience. That's not the same as being stopped by a police patrol.

What the airline and several here on PPRuNe seem not to appreciate is that it is the dismissing, minimising and rationalising of this event that has vastly magnified it. People are shocked that it happened, but are outraged by attempts to justify or mitigate it. If you value 'the rules' and see this event as falling within those rules, or as 'reasonable' given the passenger's conduct, then tread carefully or you'll see those rules promptly torn up by legislation: the view of society will now be that anything that makes this event 'right' is wrong and must not stand unchanged.
robdean is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 22:48
  #1000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
Everyone on the flight was offered a cash refund which is rather extraordinary, don't you think?

(And its probably not for the reason you are thinking......)
newfoundglory 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.