USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
> If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
Isn't a closer analogy: "A guy goes into a coffee-shop and pays for a coffee, and sits down quietly at a table, and the coffee-shop owner asks him to leave before he has drunk his coffee because he wants his staff to use that table, and the guy refuses, so the coffee shop owner calls the police, and they beat him"
Isn't a closer analogy: "A guy goes into a coffee-shop and pays for a coffee, and sits down quietly at a table, and the coffee-shop owner asks him to leave before he has drunk his coffee because he wants his staff to use that table, and the guy refuses, so the coffee shop owner calls the police, and they beat him"
Actually, I'm quite happy with the industry. The safety record of the industry is nothing less than astonishing. I can live with non-safety-related fubar. When the safety goes sideways, then I'll start to worry. btw, and apropos of safety and boycotting, an interesting read is the comments thread on the story today about this incident in the Grauniad where commenters are boasting about abandoning UAL and happily taking their business to THY and KAL.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much would you pay to have a positive television commercial such as this watched by a millions and millions of people not only across the US but across the world? I live in London England and most of my friends have seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI
This story is massive in Britain, and I suspect everywhere. It is a catastrophic disaster for the airline industry in general, and obviously for UA in particular.
I must admit that I'm astonished to see that a number of professionals such as West Coast (did you ever tell us which al you fly for?) believe that what happened was okay.
I find that more shocking than anything else about this sordid matter.
Here's a good piece in the "Economist".
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...n/tw/te/bl/ed/
Had they offered a million dollars to anyone to volunteer to leave the plane it would have been money saved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRqomRdNUrI
This story is massive in Britain, and I suspect everywhere. It is a catastrophic disaster for the airline industry in general, and obviously for UA in particular.
I must admit that I'm astonished to see that a number of professionals such as West Coast (did you ever tell us which al you fly for?) believe that what happened was okay.
I find that more shocking than anything else about this sordid matter.
Here's a good piece in the "Economist".
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...n/tw/te/bl/ed/
Had they offered a million dollars to anyone to volunteer to leave the plane it would have been money saved.
Last edited by kilfeder; 12th Apr 2017 at 00:01.
Avoid imitations
I see that a couple of proponents of violence applied to passengers now try to justify the actions because the passenger concerned has a "record", only since uncovered? Are these proponents saying that he therefore deserved everything that happened to him? Are they saying that his sentences, whatever they may have been, were insufficient punishment and in their opinions, were not spent? I doubt any court of law would agree.
Strange that UAL were quite happy in the first instance to take his money, in advance, for a flight ticket.
His alleged belligerence appears only to have occurred once he was about to be forcibly removed from the aircraft. No doubt had his request not to "volunteer" to defer his ticket been taken notice of, he would have sat totally quietly.
To try to make out that he was going to compromise the safety of the aircraft is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
Strange that UAL were quite happy in the first instance to take his money, in advance, for a flight ticket.
His alleged belligerence appears only to have occurred once he was about to be forcibly removed from the aircraft. No doubt had his request not to "volunteer" to defer his ticket been taken notice of, he would have sat totally quietly.
To try to make out that he was going to compromise the safety of the aircraft is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gun Foot Shoot!
There is much hyperbole being spouted here but also countered by many common sense observations and many incorrect assumptions!
The Captain has ultimate authority only when the doors are closed otherwise he is generally the conduit for operational instructions from Operations.
That the situation was shockingly handled is beyond question and reaffirms my wariness of US attitudes and enforcement protocols. Plus how can the airline "suddenly" discover it needed to position 4! crew members ?..
In europe I could not begin to imagine this situation occurring. I have had to manage offloads on several occasions but always from a safety/inebriated, aircraft performance/MTOW, tech angle. Positioning crew will NEVER trump a fare paying passenger. Spare Jump/crew seats can be authorised but thats it. If the crew cannot be accommodated then the airline will charter to postion the crew as required.
This disgraceful mismanaged event was matched only by the defensive arrogance of an uncaring remote corporation.
There is much hyperbole being spouted here but also countered by many common sense observations and many incorrect assumptions!
The Captain has ultimate authority only when the doors are closed otherwise he is generally the conduit for operational instructions from Operations.
That the situation was shockingly handled is beyond question and reaffirms my wariness of US attitudes and enforcement protocols. Plus how can the airline "suddenly" discover it needed to position 4! crew members ?..
In europe I could not begin to imagine this situation occurring. I have had to manage offloads on several occasions but always from a safety/inebriated, aircraft performance/MTOW, tech angle. Positioning crew will NEVER trump a fare paying passenger. Spare Jump/crew seats can be authorised but thats it. If the crew cannot be accommodated then the airline will charter to postion the crew as required.
This disgraceful mismanaged event was matched only by the defensive arrogance of an uncaring remote corporation.
Last edited by Greek God; 11th Apr 2017 at 23:42. Reason: Sp
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast & Airbubba,
It seems to me you are deeply down into the weeds trying to justify what has happened in this incident as being OK from the cockpit viewpoint. I think you both need to take a look at it from a much higher level.
There is a rule of business that applies and it is blind to whatever business you are in, the airline business isn't exempt. Simply stated, "A company's reputation in the eye's of its customers is built over years and years of demonstrated customer satisfaction. But, reputation that developed and was built over those years can be lost in a blink of an eye when customer satisfaction, either perceived or real is lost."
While you are defending an event based on complex rules or regulations, some of which are open for interpretation, customers who know little or nothing about the rules you are using to justify your positions, look at visual information (270 million views so far) as to what took place and conclude that it didn't need to happen.
The customers are smart enough to recognize there were better ways to handle this situation by the airline and that even the way it was handled, created the entire situation. Turning the episode over to the authorities to solve was a huge mistake.
This morning, at the opening bell the airline lost $1B in valuation, at closing it recovered to losing only $250M. If you are a CEO of a company that deals with individual customers, thousands of them every day, you expect to have employees that are customer oriented at the lowest level. If you are not customer oriented on the frontline, don't expect to be ever among the best providers having the best businesses.
It seems to me you are deeply down into the weeds trying to justify what has happened in this incident as being OK from the cockpit viewpoint. I think you both need to take a look at it from a much higher level.
There is a rule of business that applies and it is blind to whatever business you are in, the airline business isn't exempt. Simply stated, "A company's reputation in the eye's of its customers is built over years and years of demonstrated customer satisfaction. But, reputation that developed and was built over those years can be lost in a blink of an eye when customer satisfaction, either perceived or real is lost."
While you are defending an event based on complex rules or regulations, some of which are open for interpretation, customers who know little or nothing about the rules you are using to justify your positions, look at visual information (270 million views so far) as to what took place and conclude that it didn't need to happen.
The customers are smart enough to recognize there were better ways to handle this situation by the airline and that even the way it was handled, created the entire situation. Turning the episode over to the authorities to solve was a huge mistake.
This morning, at the opening bell the airline lost $1B in valuation, at closing it recovered to losing only $250M. If you are a CEO of a company that deals with individual customers, thousands of them every day, you expect to have employees that are customer oriented at the lowest level. If you are not customer oriented on the frontline, don't expect to be ever among the best providers having the best businesses.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EU
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clay "passengers comply with lawful crew instructions"
Astonishing.
Few facts, flight was not overbooked by paying passengers.
Passengers was not denied boarding, he had not been informed about anything until he was sitting peacefully in his seat.
What world do you Clay and West live in, SkyGod world I guess, who believe this is the right way to treat a paying customer, because the airline have problems to have crew for other flights.
Is the inconvenience of the passengers who are travelling to destination X, most likely because they have a reason to be there, are their lives less important than that of the crews DH, because the airline have their own logistical issues?
Can US pilots / crew not use jump seats? Or is that below their SkyGod status?
I once saw similar situation, gate staff made a mistake and allowed a standby passenger to board, before a Captain on positioning flight had taken his seat, suddenly the aircraft was full, jump seat was also full, Captain was told to stand down, there was never a question to have a passenger removed.
This situation is down to the airlines internal crewing issues, and showing disregard for the passenger.
Options available was upping the compensation price, or taxi for the crew, was within driving distance. However UA acted cheaply here, and the result is it has cost them a fortune already, and will cost them more during the next few months.
The Coffee Shop analogy is pretty good, the passenger was not a treat and had no obligation to remove himself after he had been placed in his seat.
I am fairly sure involuntary removal is either before you board the aircraft or if you are an unruly passenger, in this case he was neither.
If you have such disregard to your paying customer, the people who pays your salary, maybe you should start flying cargo instead. You can not forcefully remove a passenger who has legally fulfilled his obligations, the breach of contract is by the UA in this case, and it would be great to see this go all the way to court, unfortunately it probably will not. But I can imagine there will come some new legislation out of this, and it will not be in favour of the airlines.
Astonishing.
Few facts, flight was not overbooked by paying passengers.
Passengers was not denied boarding, he had not been informed about anything until he was sitting peacefully in his seat.
What world do you Clay and West live in, SkyGod world I guess, who believe this is the right way to treat a paying customer, because the airline have problems to have crew for other flights.
Is the inconvenience of the passengers who are travelling to destination X, most likely because they have a reason to be there, are their lives less important than that of the crews DH, because the airline have their own logistical issues?
Can US pilots / crew not use jump seats? Or is that below their SkyGod status?
I once saw similar situation, gate staff made a mistake and allowed a standby passenger to board, before a Captain on positioning flight had taken his seat, suddenly the aircraft was full, jump seat was also full, Captain was told to stand down, there was never a question to have a passenger removed.
This situation is down to the airlines internal crewing issues, and showing disregard for the passenger.
Options available was upping the compensation price, or taxi for the crew, was within driving distance. However UA acted cheaply here, and the result is it has cost them a fortune already, and will cost them more during the next few months.
The Coffee Shop analogy is pretty good, the passenger was not a treat and had no obligation to remove himself after he had been placed in his seat.
I am fairly sure involuntary removal is either before you board the aircraft or if you are an unruly passenger, in this case he was neither.
If you have such disregard to your paying customer, the people who pays your salary, maybe you should start flying cargo instead. You can not forcefully remove a passenger who has legally fulfilled his obligations, the breach of contract is by the UA in this case, and it would be great to see this go all the way to court, unfortunately it probably will not. But I can imagine there will come some new legislation out of this, and it will not be in favour of the airlines.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an interesting example
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
I think we can guess that the Pax did not know that he HAD to obey the crew command and it looks very much like crew did not spend too long explaining the details of the Ts&Cs to him. So, the fact that he reacted badly may have been because he did not know the rules and the ones who knew the rules were so used to them - that they didn't stop to explain.
Likewise, the stock market has not waited for an explanation. Just look at their graph for the last 36 hours. All other carriers must be very grateful to United for the free lesson.
Likewise, the stock market has not waited for an explanation. Just look at their graph for the last 36 hours. All other carriers must be very grateful to United for the free lesson.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately I'm not cynical and am sure that they did no such thing!
As you very well know, nothing happens in any aircraft without the captain's consent. Even if this action was precipitated by the Ramp Supervisor, Corporate, Flight Operations or any other department/individual, nothing happens inside the aircraft without the captain's approval.
The Captain could very well have said 'i'm not bumping anyone, get these people (the non-revs) another way to Kentucky'.
Again, the Captain green-lights anything pertaining to the aircraft.
If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
United cannot and will not be found liable for the actions of these people who are not employed by the company. United could 0 but will not be found - liable for deplaning this passenger because, like I've said, once this decision has been made (rightfully or not, it's in the eyes of the beholder) there is little this passenger can do.
The Captain could very well have said 'i'm not bumping anyone, get these people (the non-revs) another way to Kentucky'.
Again, the Captain green-lights anything pertaining to the aircraft.
If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
United cannot and will not be found liable for the actions of these people who are not employed by the company. United could 0 but will not be found - liable for deplaning this passenger because, like I've said, once this decision has been made (rightfully or not, it's in the eyes of the beholder) there is little this passenger can do.
I can see this episode being used for years into the future as a valuable training tool on how not to handle a simple situation, Basil Fawlty might even be available to star.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an interesting example
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times
United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - LA Times
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we've seen from the responses of many of the "professional" pilots on here, the attitude from the flight deck seems to mirror the attitude of the rest of the staff at airlines in the US. If you don't have the option to fly with a company that doesn't view it's customers with contempt, as in the US, then you're pretty much stuck with using one of them unless you never go anywhere.
The CEO could have turned this disaster into a PR success:
"I was shocked and quite frankly horrified when I saw the way our passenger was treated in the video. This does not represent United Airlines or the values we hold dear. I will be personally reaching out to Dr. Dao to take whatever measures are required to make this right, and on behalf of United I want to apologize to both Dr. Dao and all of our customers, especially those on the flight in question. With immediate effect I have instructed our staff to put the following measures in place....<insert measures where passengers are more important than deadheading staff>".
Instead the maroon made it 10 times worse.
"I was shocked and quite frankly horrified when I saw the way our passenger was treated in the video. This does not represent United Airlines or the values we hold dear. I will be personally reaching out to Dr. Dao to take whatever measures are required to make this right, and on behalf of United I want to apologize to both Dr. Dao and all of our customers, especially those on the flight in question. With immediate effect I have instructed our staff to put the following measures in place....<insert measures where passengers are more important than deadheading staff>".
Instead the maroon made it 10 times worse.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see these references used a lot in this case...
"He refused a lawful command by the crew..."
"Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
"The crew" in this case would be one of the pilots or flight attendants correct?
Do we know for a fact the doctor disobeyed a direct order to disembark from a crew member of the flight or did this escalate after a gate agent talked to him?
If it was a gate agent I don't see how he broke any law.
"He refused a lawful command by the crew..."
"Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
"The crew" in this case would be one of the pilots or flight attendants correct?
Do we know for a fact the doctor disobeyed a direct order to disembark from a crew member of the flight or did this escalate after a gate agent talked to him?
If it was a gate agent I don't see how he broke any law.
