USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
B1
If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.
This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.
If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.
This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B1
If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.
This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.
If you're mentioning it, then you clearly know those pax were flying on pass privledges (flying for free or deeply discounted ) and as such were Subject to a dress code.
This is why UA likely won't do much , they get hammered by people who don't understand the situation and opine ignorantly, so why bother.
It has a tendency to override subtleties like this, and companies still have to deal with it. There is no excuse for the PR department of any large corporation failing to understand how this works, or that every phone is now a camera.
A person that was on the flight posted this on social media which explains why the passenger came back onboard the aircraft... Truly unbelievable that the authorities "lost him". This keeps getting better.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9FWFS1UIAA0der.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9FWFS1UIAA0der.jpg:large
Feds Now Looking Into United Airlines Incident - The Daily Beast
Photo
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
Paxing All Over The World
People may choose to be ignorant but one of the key ideas of 'capitalism' is that it adapts to new markets and how things change. Supposedly ...
But old companies get too big and have too many rules and have no possibility of adapting. Eventually, they fall and die. It's just the 'cycle of life'.
But old companies get too big and have too many rules and have no possibility of adapting. Eventually, they fall and die. It's just the 'cycle of life'.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, Ca
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Photo
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
Enough diversion...you really need to re-think the physical abuse of fare paying passengers. There is no way to paint it that makes you look good.
Photo
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
I believe UA has a presence on social media, they're all over twitter for sure. That still can't stop the ignorance of the crowd who latched onto the "legging" story without knowing they were Subject to a dress code that didn't apply to revenue pax. People even when the truth is easily accessible choose to be ignorant.
"Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;"
Although I agree on wearing proper clothing, who decides what is proper? Do they have a specific book with descriptions of what is proper and not proper?
I have seen far worst dressed people on airlines than girls wearing leggings.
CEO Blames passenger, calls him disruptive and belligerent.
What an idiot!
United CEO Oscar Munoz Calls Passenger "Disruptive and Belligerent" | Fortune.com
What an idiot!
United CEO Oscar Munoz Calls Passenger "Disruptive and Belligerent" | Fortune.com
Employee manuals discuss non rev dress code and etiquette, not terms of Carriage. The person who sent the Yong ladies traveling (on his or her travel privledges ) erred in letting them do so in leggings.
You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.
You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spice Islands
Age: 58
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employee manuals discuss non rev dress code and etiquette, not terms of Carriage. The person who sent the Yong ladies traveling (on his or her travel privledges ) erred in letting them do so in leggings.
You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.
You do make a point, many people are ignorant and no matter how much someone tries to educate them, they remain ignorant. First heard, that's then gospel no matter how much education is tried.
Granted the in-house policy also applies for people travelling on passes but I'll bet you 99% of female travelers that travel on a pass would have travelled that day wearing leggings but unfortunately fell on a pissed off gate agent that wanted to show who was the boss.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"West Coast" and others - This incident is much more serious than denied boarding due to dress code.
It is appalling for you people defending UA and the police for their actions. On other videos when he is back on board, his injuries are clearly visible.
These passengers was NOT DENIED boarding, they had already taken their seats and boarded, that was it. This was the company OPS who had messed up, and sure they could offer financial offers to get people to leave their seats, but DH does not have any god given right to be given a seat on an aircraft that has been fully booked and the passengers have already boarded.
I have seen DH crew been bumped because flights have been full, or been made to sit on the jump seat in cabin or / and cockpit. But it is unheard of that already boarded passengers is forced of the aircraft.
That some of you can defend the indefensible actions of the UA crew and the police is beyond me. The UA crew would have told police to get the passenger of no matter what.
Any actions performed on the aircraft should be under supervision and with permission of the Commander.
This passenger had until been ordered to remove himself from the aircraft, not said a word against the crew.
Now if someone orders you of a flight in such a situation, how many of you would not get upset and give your piece of mind?
I am sorry the DH Crew had no exceptional priority, this should be clear, and I am pretty sure that in the contract given the passengers, it's not written that DH Crew shall have any priority, furthermore they can not be calculated as over-booked, as they are not paying passengers.
This is a mess up by the OPS department, and if they have managed to get into this situation, that they don't have enough crew at some base, for sure the passengers should not be the once suffering for this. OPS should have found another way to have moved their crew or had some foresight so they did not end in this situation.
However more importantly, the way the passenger was removed, sorry that's a criminal offence, and it seems the passengers injuries happen on the aircraft, as the police was carrying out orders from the Commander to have the innocent passenger removed by force, based on an unknown selection criteria.
Just because you are aircrew, does not make you some special privileged entity, that are more important than others. What an ignorant and arrogant attitude you have "West Coast"
It is appalling for you people defending UA and the police for their actions. On other videos when he is back on board, his injuries are clearly visible.
These passengers was NOT DENIED boarding, they had already taken their seats and boarded, that was it. This was the company OPS who had messed up, and sure they could offer financial offers to get people to leave their seats, but DH does not have any god given right to be given a seat on an aircraft that has been fully booked and the passengers have already boarded.
I have seen DH crew been bumped because flights have been full, or been made to sit on the jump seat in cabin or / and cockpit. But it is unheard of that already boarded passengers is forced of the aircraft.
That some of you can defend the indefensible actions of the UA crew and the police is beyond me. The UA crew would have told police to get the passenger of no matter what.
Any actions performed on the aircraft should be under supervision and with permission of the Commander.
This passenger had until been ordered to remove himself from the aircraft, not said a word against the crew.
Now if someone orders you of a flight in such a situation, how many of you would not get upset and give your piece of mind?
I am sorry the DH Crew had no exceptional priority, this should be clear, and I am pretty sure that in the contract given the passengers, it's not written that DH Crew shall have any priority, furthermore they can not be calculated as over-booked, as they are not paying passengers.
This is a mess up by the OPS department, and if they have managed to get into this situation, that they don't have enough crew at some base, for sure the passengers should not be the once suffering for this. OPS should have found another way to have moved their crew or had some foresight so they did not end in this situation.
However more importantly, the way the passenger was removed, sorry that's a criminal offence, and it seems the passengers injuries happen on the aircraft, as the police was carrying out orders from the Commander to have the innocent passenger removed by force, based on an unknown selection criteria.
Just because you are aircrew, does not make you some special privileged entity, that are more important than others. What an ignorant and arrogant attitude you have "West Coast"
Paxing All Over The World
That is true but the public only hear United. The media only know United and the Ts&Cs will be United.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truck
Quite simply, you're wrong. Moving crews is a priority for the airline. 4 pax bumped or 70 plus cancelled pax pissed because a crew isn't in position, that's just for the first flight missed. It ain't pretty but it's the airline life.
I can say with certainty that the agents didn't want this to end this way, and it didn't for the other 3. That the fourth felt he wasn't subject to getting booted and pushed it to the point of refusing the LEOs order to leave under his own power, well, he deserves blame.
Quite simply, you're wrong. Moving crews is a priority for the airline. 4 pax bumped or 70 plus cancelled pax pissed because a crew isn't in position, that's just for the first flight missed. It ain't pretty but it's the airline life.
I can say with certainty that the agents didn't want this to end this way, and it didn't for the other 3. That the fourth felt he wasn't subject to getting booted and pushed it to the point of refusing the LEOs order to leave under his own power, well, he deserves blame.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Officer Who Dragged Bloodied Passenger From United Flight Suspended
More from: https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/u...-ohare-airport
Chicago airport security officer who helped drag a United Airlines passenger off a plane by his arms, bloodying his lip as horrified passengers protested and recorded the episode on their smartphones Sunday night at O'Hare International Airport, was placed on leave Monday. ...
"The incident ... was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by our Department. The officer has been placed on leave effective today and pending a thorough review of the situation."
"The incident ... was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by our Department. The officer has been placed on leave effective today and pending a thorough review of the situation."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Glad to see some professional pilot humor still allowed here on PPRuNe. 
Here's the email United CEO Oscar Muņoz sent to the employees this evening:
Here's the email United CEO Oscar Muņoz sent to the employees this evening:
Dear Team,
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
. On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
. We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
. He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
. On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
. We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
. He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
