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 11th Apr 2017, 09:36
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South East
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Forget all the politics. This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane. He was dealt with accordingly.
HidekiTojo is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:39
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An "internet " seems to be today's only reliable way to make big companies change their behavior. At one point there were lawmakers, whose job is was supposedly to regulate abusive behavior by large corporations. Nowadays said lawmakers are to a few exceptions utterly corrupt and bought off by the same companies.

So, name and shame, expose, sue... Fairness doesn't come into it either: it's a jungle out there and the companies' lawyers will not "fight fair" either...

If it becomes really really expensive to solve this kind of situation, then overbooking practices will diminish or cease. Simples.
FlyMD is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:40
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't the airline simply have put the DH crew into a limo and driven them to Louisville? Am I missing something?
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:40
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Local Variation
Possibly this one.

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.
That's the only legal loophole I can see. But the passenger it appears only failed to comply after being told a computer decided he was to be offloaded. Not to mention minimum force required to meet the objective. As others have said, plenty more ways to have reached that objective. How many were tried before someone "jumped the gun"? Sorry, Chicago airport police don't have guns 😂
B738bbjsim is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:43
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 69
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Positive PR" . I read that as "positive propaganda" or words are cheap. The are already the over-hyped "the friendly skies".
If procedures that are actually fit for use are not followed all the PR in the universe won't help. However, the notoriously short memory of the public will.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:44
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Back of beyond
Posts: 793
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
It wasn't an overbooked flight.

It was a full and boarded flight that needed to accommodate 4 DH crew.

The operator needed to do the following:

Make an announcement explaining the situation

State clearly that the flight would NOT operate without the DH crew being on board.

Ask for volunteers

If not enough pax step forward, deplane EVERYONE.

Separate the unlucky 4 from the rest of the passengers and board the remainder

End of story
RevMan2 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:48
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: near BHX
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane."

The court case, if it comes to that, will be decided on that "reasonable". Is it reasonable for an already embarked passenger to be disembarked because of the failure of an airline to provide necessary transport for its staff, transport that could be provided in a range of other ways? Because if United want to argue in court that you are disruptive the moment you refuse an instruction to leave the plane for the convenience of its staff, and that justifies a beating, then the court hearing is going to be a daily PR disaster for as long as it goes on.

The Chicago Police Department have suspended their employee pending investigation, so they clearly don't have United's confidence in the righteousness of the events. It's going to be very, very interesting to hear precisely what United staff said to the CPD in order to have them come on board, and what account they gave of the passenger's behaviour prior to the arrival of the police. Because if it turns out that they over-egged their account in order to involve the police in what was up to that point a civil issue, a court will regard that as a smoking gun.
xyzzy is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:50
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
Good spot sitigeltfel, Munoz is the guy that spent the first months of his stint as CEO on sick leave, right? What was it that Napoleon said, give me lucky generals, when asked what attributes he most valued in his team. Munoz needs to improve his luck. As Parson says, the best way would be to counter the negative PR as quickly as possible rather than engaging in denial that there is a problem, which is what his latest communication sounds like.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:50
  #289 (permalink)  

I Have Control
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HidekiTojo is correct. The passenger became clearly disruptive. So he was dealt with accordingly.

Of course had United devised a practical means of positioning their 4 crew members correctly, the situation would have been avoided.


Unlike United, my damned UK company forces positioning pilots and cabin crew to travel standby even for long haul.

I think I prefer United's system, but without the violence.
RoyHudd is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:50
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 78
Posts: 1,100
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by HidekiTojo
Forget all the politics. This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself from the aeroplane. He was dealt with accordingly.

Reasonable request.......I don't think so!! He had a ticket, he had paid United money. In what way disruptive? It was United who were "disruptive", they disrupted their passengers travel plans. Involving security was "overkill". If enough money had been offered, someone would have walked off that aircraft of their own volition.

Last edited by Planemike; 11th Apr 2017 at 10:15.
Planemike is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:53
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe it is worth noting that there is a trend now of appointing business leaders to high office in government. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Also, it seems this was NOT an overbooked flight, simply the seats were needed for crew re-positioning.
whiterock is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:53
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"This man went from paying passenger to disruptive passenger the moment he refused a reasonable request to remove himself"

The phrase "Reasonable Request", are you kidding me?

As for the commander not being able to step out of the cockpit while on the ground, what utter nonsense.

It was the Commanders judgement that set in force all the events that followed later, rather than in connection with the company try to find a solution that would be acceptable for all parts.
Which could have meant more money, or transport the Crew by car etc.

Sure it will blow over for United, but I doubt it will blow over before a nice settlement cheque have been offered.

Also I feel there might be more legal ramifications for airlines in the USA after this, as the contract seems to be fairly unbalanced from a legal perspective, seems very biased towards the company itself.

The fact here is that this flight was not overbooked, it was due to United own internal issues that 4 passengers was forced of, it's looking very expensive for United indeed.
truckflyer is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:54
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: near BHX
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"If not enough pax step forward, deplane EVERYONE."

You don't think that on a Sunday night that would make the incident that actually took place look like drinks before dinner? Can you imagine the video footage of removing by force a plane-load of passengers, including children, for the convenience of four United employees?

You ask the passengers to deplane. They say, en masse, "**** off". Your move.

Remember, the opening task was to move four staff to a location within driving range: unless the red mist has descended and you've lost sight of your objectives, how does provoking a riot/sit-in to prove your point help? This wasn't about debating the rights and wrongs of the power of airline staff over passengers, this was about providing transport for four people in a reasonable timeframe. Wouldn't a limo, or a NetJet, be less effort than a riot on global TV? The actions of United staff have already made footage of the beating of a passenger a global sensation (it his the 10 o'clock on the BBC, for example, and is now Big In China): imagine what starting a riot on a plane would look like. Why are United staff so keen on "showing who's boss" and less interested in just solving the problem?
xyzzy is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 09:57
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 74
Posts: 136
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bluesideoops
It states in his email 'the involuntary denial of boarding process was initiated' and the passengers was 'denied boarding'.....he looked pretty damned 'boarded' sat in his seat when they tried to physically remove him!
There's a few lawyers weighing in now on public forums -- this one caught my eye

Paraphrasing https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/you...luntary-bumps/

This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

- First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

- Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

- Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.


end quote/paraphrase

Just putting it out their for comment
unworry is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:15
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 382
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
To be fair, the flight was no overbooked.


The airline decided to let non-paying individuals onto the aircraft, and remove people who had not only paid, but had been boarded. If it had all been done in the departure lounge as any reasonable organisation would have done, then it would have been all over without much fuss.


But to be clear, the people who were doing the gazumping, were not paying passengers. The airline cannot really use the overbooking excuse really - just one of crass insensitivity, poor planning and a terrible way of handing a self-inflicted problem.
GrahamO is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:20
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 69
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats

I believe this relates specifically to employees on "stand-by" for carriage and would apply to even those employees travelling on business with confirmed seats. Speaking as one of those types.


Was trying to think of any other business transaction where you could be refused a "product" after you had bought and paid for it and had started to use it (by being seated, awaiting movement to destination).
Can't think of one.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:21
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Internal email to all United employees...

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 preliminary reports.

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 aboce 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 cor of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Nige321 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:22
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Ripton
It's not entirely clear but was the LEO suspended for giving the good doctor a sound kicking or failing to do a good enough job that the poor chap was able to escape and re-board the aircraft?
the only reason the passenger would have re-boarded is that he was allowed to or directed to! there's no way this passenger would have attempted to sneak on again.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:34
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UTC-14
Posts: 27
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The correct PR approach would have been a CEO statement like:

"While our staff did follow correct procedures, clearly we initiated a chain of events that resulted in a passenger in our care getting badly injured. All of United is horrified that it turned out this way. That's not what we're about. While I wasn't there, the buck stops with me. This is my problem to fix."

In a crisis you don't deflect; you step forward and take the punches; they stop pretty quickly once people work out you are morally strong enough to willingly take the hits.
UnreliableSource is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2017, 10:40
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 74
Posts: 136
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I guess they can afford the lawsuit ...

"For the year, United registered $2.3 billion in profit against $36.6 billion in total revenue. In addition, the airline returned $628 million to employees in the form of profit sharing. "
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/u...17-1?r=US&IR=T

That said, no amount of legal badassery can fix a tarnished reputation. The internet is ablaze with ridiculing memes, so this wont blow over in a day.
unworry is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.