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 15th Apr 2017, 10:59
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,307
Originally Posted by ZFT View Post
Why should any law abiding passenger be fearful of bodily harm?
Every elderly non-frequent flier will now be very concerned that they may be roughed up to the point of unconsciousness on United. I suspect that there will be a significant drop in that type of traveler booking with United where they have a choice.

Indeed had Dr Dao been thrown just a little bit harder at that armrest, United could be accessories to a second degree murder charge. This cannot be let pass as 'just an incident'. Everything done after the Dr's legal refusal to deboard should not have happened. A minor issue with Ops failing to block 4 seats on a flight then the 4 non-revs turning up late led to this so both Ops and all those flying non-rev must also learn real lessons. Those sheeple SLF you disparage so easily will be voting with their wallets and avoid United wherever possible.
Ian W is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 11:10
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,307
Originally Posted by newfoundglory View Post
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......)
Apparently, acceptance of that cash refund (the bait) requires the pax to 'hold United harmless' and not take any subsequent legal action. United are not capable of rational thought it would seem.
Ian W is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 11:36
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 562
It's probably fair to say the good Dr. stand to receive a handsome compensation in a court, in the multiple of millions probably. United could, and probably will, try to dissuade him from taking them to court, and will thus have to come up with a sizeable offer indeed.

I have no doubt the lawyers of UA will make it clear to the beancounters of same, that offering an obscene amount of money will, in the long run, be the cheaper option.

What I'm hoping for however, is that a 69-year old doctor will be satisfied with whatever a court will award him, even if it's likely to be lower than what UA offers out of court.

In which case there's nothing UA can do, but brace itself for a round of court proceedings that's likely to cause lots of headlines all around the world, with the possibility of repercussions which may have a lasting, and positive, effect on the way airlines treat its passengers.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 11:57
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by DON T View Post
400kgs of luggage doesn't equal four seats for crew.
My comment was in response to the unforeseen scenario where an upload of fuel was required.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 12:28
  #1045 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by b1lanc View Post
Spreading to other airlines now.

Internal Error
$6 million for being bumped (and, allegedly, racially discriminated).

Makes Dr Dao's case look like 100's of millions . . .
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 12:43
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
Every elderly non-frequent flier will now be very concerned that they may be roughed up to the point of unconsciousness on United. I suspect that there will be a significant drop in that type of traveler booking with United where they have a choice.

Indeed had Dr Dao been thrown just a little bit harder at that armrest, United could be accessories to a second degree murder charge. This cannot be let pass as 'just an incident'. Everything done after the Dr's legal refusal to deboard should not have happened. A minor issue with Ops failing to block 4 seats on a flight then the 4 non-revs turning up late led to this so both Ops and all those flying non-rev must also learn real lessons. Those sheeple SLF you disparage so easily will be voting with their wallets and avoid United wherever possible.
One has to wonder if the teacher with the 7 students (or the 7 students along with their parents) would ever choose to fly UA again. Same for the father who took his crying 8 year old daughter off. And I don't think they were alone in feeling absolutely horrified at the treatment of a fellow passenger based on the look of other pax faces in the video. There are other airline options.
b1lanc is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 14:25
  #1047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,146
DaveReidUK,
a) Dr Dao will reluctantly forego his day in court, on the advice of his lawyers, but will become a very rich man
Don't look for anything to happen very soon regarding what Dr. Dao may do or not do. He and his lawyers have two years to decide. They will be watching what happens in the O'Hare airport security personnel situation.

As the three security personnel have been suspended resulting from their actions, the Cook County District Attorney will decide on possible criminal charges and if there is enough evidence to submit to a grand jury. The grand jury only decides based on the evidence submitted as to whether or not the case should go to trial. If it goes to a jury trial, I would think Dr. Dao's lawyers will hold off, looking for criminal convictions. This would enhance Dr. Dao's position to recover maximum damages from the city and airport management.

The same can be said for the United/Republican situation once it is unraveled as to who did what, when.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 14:44
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,150
I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 14:51
  #1049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,804
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
Don't look for anything to happen very soon regarding what Dr. Dao may do or not do. He and his lawyers have two years to decide.
During the press conference, Dao's lawyer stated that, while they do indeed have two years in which to act, they didn't anticipate taking anything like that long to put their case together.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 15:06
  #1050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
There is a hearing in Chicago court on Monday, I would imagine that must be about the emergency evidence preservation request.

If you recall they have asked for pax/crew lists, CVR (although we seem to have already established this is probably not possible), the policy being used to remove pax from the aircraft, names of the "police" officers involved, as well as other things.
newfoundglory is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 15:40
  #1051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 601
UA will need to establish and publish a more client friendly bumping procedure.
Yup.

And the best would be that the airlines simply don't overbook. You bought the seat, whether you ride in it or not, you pay for the seat whether you ride in it or not, and the airline does not try to sell the seat twice early in the process.

If, 5 minutes before gate closure, you're not in it, and nowhere to be found running toward it, a standby passenger, who has no guarantee of getting on that flight, might get the seat that you paid for and missed.

30 years ago, that's how we did things at the airline. When the little paper sticky tab was pulled off the seat chart for that flight, that seat was assigned to a passenger who had a boarding pass in their hand - with that sticky on it! That seat could not be resold. It was simple.
9 lives is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 15:43
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
I am not a lawyer, but I understand what can happen in consumer abuse cases because my father was in the middle of one that is somewhat analogous to this one. This was in the days prior to cell phones and social media, so the problem for United is much larger now.

My father would have played the role of poor Dr. Dao. His situation was as follows. He checked into a Hotel/Casino in Nevada for the night and was given a discount coupon for one of the restaurants. My father ate dinner and attempted to pay using the coupon which was NOT honored by the restaurant staff. The staff called security who took my father into a back room and roughed him up (injuries were no where near as severe as poor Dr. Dao's). They made him cough up the money then made him sign a statement saying they had done nothing wrong. He gladly signed it knowing it would never hold up in court because the signature was obtained under duress.

The next morning he went to an attorney who did a little discovery and found that the practice of denied vouchers was widespread. The subsequent class action lawsuit put the Casino out of business.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 16:08
  #1053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.
There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 16:53
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,307
It must be stressed - repeatedly - that this was not an overbooking issue. Overbooking procedures are completely irrelevant to this case.

It is a far more important issue to face. Once passengers have boarded with a valid ticket and are not a hazard (to be defined in great detail) to the safe operation of the aircraft, does the Airline have any right to eject them from the flight for their administrative convenience.

In this case to make the next day's operations more efficient, UAL decided to eject 4 peaceful boarded passengers and replace them with 4 non-rev DH crew who had not bothered to reserve seats and had not bothered to arrive before boarding commenced.

THEN

Given that the passenger who refused to deboard was completely within his rights according to UAL's conditions of carriage and FAA CFR 250 under what rule were UAL operating to call 'law enforcement' and what law gave 'law enforcement' the authority to cause grievous bodily harm (it was luck that the passenger was not killed) to a passenger who was acting within his rights?

I repeat that this is nothing to do with overbooking - that is a pivot being made to avoid the far more egregious physical assault on a passenger for UAL's administrative convenience and to recover from errors made by UAL Ops and by the DH non-revs.

If anyone is to make any rules they should be to make it absolutely and completely plain to the passengers, the gate agents and the flight crews (including the more authoritarian commenters on here who think everything was done correctly) what the law is and what the rights of a passenger are. Including right of redress that I would suggest is more than the top limit that Delta is offering when the airline decides to void its side of the contract of carriage. This should include similar amounts to pax bumped by the 'clever scheme' of faked mechanical problems then bumping them on reboarding.

If the airlines do not sort out bumping to carry non-rev DH crews, then I expect DoT or Congressional decisions that will be indeterminate and likely to be far more damaging to the airlines. As causing grievous bodily harm to a 69 year old man has removed all sympathy or empathy with the airlines. The more 'coastal' comments made on here the less sympathy there is for the airlines' case. Remember that it is UAL that was caught out now but the lack of sympathy will be across all airlines - your jobs may become far more difficult and I would suggest everyone stops digging because climbing out of this hole is going to be painful for the industry.
Ian W is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 16:56
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medically Grounded
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.
As I said earlier, the industry needs to get out in front of this predicament early. If not, congress will do it for them, and it won't be pretty. The airlines are on a short timetable for this since Mr Munoz has been "invited " to appear before a congressional committee in about a week.
Piper_Driver is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:02
  #1056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,150
There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.

GF
But why should the passenger trust the airlines to get it right when this incident showed that lower level interpretation was against the passenger big time?

The Delta press release doesn't address this question in spite of dangling $$$$ for all to see
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:12
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Why? If I entrust the airline with my and my family's lives to transport me somewhere; it's not too much to expect to be treated with respect and a modicum of kindness. I'm a million-miler with Brand D and a former airline pilot, so I know all too well-stuff happens. It's how they handle stuff that matters.

The other option is bring in more competition--let the ME3, NAI, the lot fly domestic and see if the US carriers survive with the present state.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:30
  #1058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
Given that the passenger who refused to deboard was completely within his rights according to UAL's conditions of carriage and FAA CFR 250 under what rule were UAL operating to call 'law enforcement'
The aviation lawyer said, on live TV, that the captain was the one in charge. That was a clear statement which was made.

While I think the chain of command on the ground at the gate is unclear, I cannot see how the answer can be anything else.
newfoundglory is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:44
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,307
Originally Posted by newfoundglory View Post
The aviation lawyer said, on live TV, that the captain was the one in charge. That was a clear statement which was made.

While I think the chain of command on the ground at the gate is unclear, I cannot see how the answer can be anything else.
The captain had better have a good lawyer in that case, as (s)he could be on a criminal charge of aiding and abetting an assault while acting outside both the UAL conditions of carriage and FAA regulations. Furthermore, almost certainly, the captain will also be sued in civil court for not preventing the action as (s)he was 'in total control'. I would suspect the cost of defending the case, let alone the damages award, could be expensive. The Union better take the captain's side but may not if a criminal offence has occurred, they won't want to put themselves into the position where they will lose millions defending the indefensible.
Ian W is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:57
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 550
Is not the captain in an absurd position, with all the responsibility but none of the knowledge?
It seems to me that the whole idea of the captain (or the ground personnel) deciding who is to fly or not is a relic of bygone days. Airplanes today are like mid sized hotels, with service staff, while the management is locked behind the cockpit doors.
It would be more consistent with civil rights and reality to accept that once people pass security, they are qualified to be on board. If the airplane is oversold, the auction mechanism allows for the market to clear.
etudiant 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.