USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Once Upon A Time the no-show high-paying flexible ticket holders used to be dealt with by something called "standby". When the flight was notionally full, you got sold a "standby" ticket, which entitled you to stand by the bottom of the steps, wait until no more confirmed passengers turned up, then get into the aircraft.
I was never denied boarding on a standby ticket, but if I had been
(a) it would have happened before I'd got onto the aircraft
(b) I wouldn't have been upset, because I knew exactly what I was buying.
I was never denied boarding on a standby ticket, but if I had been
(a) it would have happened before I'd got onto the aircraft
(b) I wouldn't have been upset, because I knew exactly what I was buying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the need to position crew to somewhere to operate another flight (ie a commercial consideration) caused all of this to happen. All they needed to do to remedy the situation was to OFFER MORE MONEY TO VOLUNTEER. There would have been plenty of ppl willing to rake a couple of grand and a hotel. Pay whatever rhe price is to attract willing participants. As a last resort, offload your own positioning crew and cancel the next flight.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks like some sort of call set up on August 10, 2017.
Now, about that ad damnum...
Case Information Summary for Case Number
2017-CH-05227
Filing Date: 04/12/2017
Case Type: GENERAL CHANCERY
Division: Chancery Division
District: First Municipal
Ad Damnum: $0.00
Calendar: 09
Party Information
Plaintiff(s)
Attorney(s)
DAO DAVID A
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
33 N DEARBORN 21STFL
CHICAGO IL, 60602
(312) 346-3191
Defendant(s)
Defendant Date of Service
Attorney(s)
MUNICIPAL CORPRATION [sic]
UNITED AIRLINES INC
CITY CHICAGO
Case Activity
Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
GENERAL CHANCERY FILED
Court Fee:
368.00
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
Date:
08/10/2017
Court Time:
0900
Court Room:
2008
Judge:
TAILOR SANJAY T
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
2017-CH-05227
Filing Date: 04/12/2017
Case Type: GENERAL CHANCERY
Division: Chancery Division
District: First Municipal
Ad Damnum: $0.00
Calendar: 09
Party Information
Plaintiff(s)
Attorney(s)
DAO DAVID A
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
33 N DEARBORN 21STFL
CHICAGO IL, 60602
(312) 346-3191
Defendant(s)
Defendant Date of Service
Attorney(s)
MUNICIPAL CORPRATION [sic]
UNITED AIRLINES INC
CITY CHICAGO
Case Activity
Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
GENERAL CHANCERY FILED
Court Fee:
368.00
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
Activity Date: 04/12/2017
Participant: DAO DAVID A
CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
Date:
08/10/2017
Court Time:
0900
Court Room:
2008
Judge:
TAILOR SANJAY T
Attorney:
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
I don't think anyone involved expected or dreamt this would happen. In retrospect there are any number of ways this could have been avoided but, to the people there, this eventuality wasn't remotely anticipated. Passengers boarded, CC trying to get everything ready, then a request to find X seats. Seems they found X-1 without issue. Final one, chosen by algorithm, pushes back. Argues, won't budge. So CC walk back annoyed that their rightful request has been ignored.Think how can I make this guy realise I am within my rights and he must stand, walk and go. OK, I'll find someone in uniform with 'security' on their vest to make the point. That will convince him. Never think the security guys anticipate they will only be called upon when muscle power is needed and with that mindset they board the aircraft.
Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.
Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.
The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone involved expected or dreamt this would happen. In retrospect there are any number of ways this could have been avoided but, to the people there, this eventuality wasn't remotely anticipated. Passengers boarded, CC trying to get everything ready, then a request to find X seats. Seems they found X-1 without issue. Final one, chosen by algorithm, pushes back. Argues, won't budge. So CC walk back annoyed that their rightful request has been ignored.Think how can I make this guy realise I am within my rights and he must stand, walk and go. OK, I'll find someone in uniform with 'security' on their vest to make the point. That will convince him. Never think the security guys anticipate they will only be called upon when muscle power is needed and with that mindset they board the aircraft.
Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.
Everything is still OK until they lay hands on a 69 year old professional. That's when the jobs are lost, careers terminated and the millions leave United's bank account.
Finally, someone not only says no, but hell no. Because the flight crew always uses badges to remove lawfully removable pax (drunk, etc.), they call the cops on Dr. Dao.
How did that work out, United? Cha ching.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, Ca
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This case will indeed go to trial.United may want to settle, hell it's in their best interest to settle. However, Dr. Dao's attorney is the one dictating the terms, including compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is easy...hospital and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin, imagine what you can rx for fractured sinuses received at the hands of an airline and police to remove you from an airplane that you had boarded and on which you were peacefully waiting to depart.
The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.
BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.
The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.
BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.
@ Turbine D
Yes there may well be a policy for punitive damages. This will have lots of fine print and exclusions.
So I agree with you the defendants will be doing their very best to reach a (generous) settlement, and avoid a trial with all the costs and risks and unknowns that entails (including the risk of punitive damages).
The problem may be that the pax is now sufficiently upset and angry that it has gone beyond mere $$$ and he wants his day in court.
The CEO has been quoted as saying he has been unsuccessful in trying to contact the pax. Not a hopeful sign.
slats11,
Quote:
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Quote:
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Yes there may well be a policy for punitive damages. This will have lots of fine print and exclusions.
So I agree with you the defendants will be doing their very best to reach a (generous) settlement, and avoid a trial with all the costs and risks and unknowns that entails (including the risk of punitive damages).
The problem may be that the pax is now sufficiently upset and angry that it has gone beyond mere $$$ and he wants his day in court.
The CEO has been quoted as saying he has been unsuccessful in trying to contact the pax. Not a hopeful sign.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: manchester
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
Or is he saying that CVRs are only relevant to incidents involving metal being bent, not simply passengers?
In the UA case there is a probability that the airline and its servants (and that includes the captain) may have acted illegally, not simply committing a civil tort, and consequently a passenger was injured. What is the difference between this situation and an illegal event taking place in the air, or indeed taxiing on the field? Surely the line must be drawn once a passenger is on board and under the safety of the captain? Or does Basil think that the captain is not responsible when the plane is still at the gate? Surely not. It is the captain who, for example, would have to manage an evacuation in the event of a fire caused by refuelling whilst the aircraft is still on the ramp, and presumably that is why the captain tells us to keep our seat belts unfastened during refuellling....
Basil, the buck starts when the SLF are on board. Thus the CVR contents start being relevant at the same time in my book.
The CVR is relevant when you need to understand what happened on the FD before all the participants died. If they are here, standing in front of you, just ask them. Point was made how would you like it if every curse, fart and incorrect utterance could be recalled and used by the company.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if already posted, Life's too short to back track the whole thread.
"Pentagon give contract to United to remove Assad" .....( scroll down )
Syria issues travel ban on U.S. missiles
"Pentagon give contract to United to remove Assad" .....( scroll down )
Syria issues travel ban on U.S. missiles
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: manchester
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CVR is relevant when you need to understand what happened on the FD before all the participants died. If they are here, standing in front of you, just ask them. Point was made how would you like it if every curse, fart and incorrect utterance could be recalled and used by the company.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From a recent article on employee monitoring in a human resources industry association magazine:
Under Federal Law
Employers generally have the right to monitor employees as they perform their work, although eavesdropping is a gray area. According to National Workrights Institute President Lewis Maltby, location matters. “If an employer wants to put a microphone in an office area and listen to what everybody does all day, that’s perfectly legal,” he says. “But you can’t put a bug in the cafeteria where people are talking about personal issues.”
Employers generally have the right to monitor employees as they perform their work, although eavesdropping is a gray area. According to National Workrights Institute President Lewis Maltby, location matters. “If an employer wants to put a microphone in an office area and listen to what everybody does all day, that’s perfectly legal,” he says. “But you can’t put a bug in the cafeteria where people are talking about personal issues.”
Actually, some years ago FedEx pilots did find listening devices in the cafeteria during one of their unionization struggles as I recall.
I agree, I would hope that the promise made decades ago would be kept. That is, if we would agree to the CVR, it would never be used for anything except improving safety.
But, being somewhat cynical with experience, I know that often these well intended innovations and reporting programs can morph into something else over time.
With respect, and in respect to the CVR, I think you are missing the point. You want to know what happened, you want to know who said what, when and to whom. Fine. May I suggest that you just ask them, bearing in mind that every conversation has at least two witnesses available to you ? In what circumstances do you think you would need to pull the CVR in this case? If you need to understand why 250 bodies are lying on the ocean floor ok, but in this pathetic example of US cultural goat f+ck?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned, is that the CVR also records conversations between the cabin and the flight deck on the internal telephone system, i.e. between F/As and pilots and F/As and F/As. Those conversations could be quite revealing.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: England
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who's flown frequently and worldwide for five decades, I was surprised to learn that I could be asked to deplane for non-safety reasons once I've boarded and strapped myself in. I've always accepted that I could be 'bumped' at the gate if, say, seats on the plane were unusable for some reason, but I'd assumed that once I'd put my luggage in the overhead locker and started reading the safety card, the airline had 'accepted' me. I've never encountered an on-board bumping, even flying internally in the USA (the one milieu where US airlines cannot be avoided, sadly). If I was asked to deplane for some kind of financial recompense, and declined the offer, I would expect that to be the end of the matter as far as I was concerned. If I was asked more aggressively to get off, I'd be alarmed, indignant and scared. If I was then confronted by three large men in jeans who spoke menacingly and laid hands on me, I'd be deeply confused on top of being alarmed, indignant and scared. I'd have no idea that the airline had legal small print in its favour, as I've never read the small print for any of the many airlines I've flown, like 99.999% of passengers. I wouldn't have a ticket to read -
like many people I'd be travelling with just a barcode/boarding card on my smartphone. I'm fairly sure I'd resist, purely on the basis that I was safer on a plane full of people than in a secluded part of the airport with these three large, threatening men whose link to official police seemed unconvincing. I'd be especially scared if I were elderly (actually, I am), small (yup, that too), and Asian (I'm not) in a country where Asian people had been attacked or murdered in 'safe' situations. So this man's reaction seems wholly understandable to me, and the idea that he should have smiled and gone along with the whole deal sounds like the view of someone inured to unquestioning obedience.
As someone who married into a family of aviation professionals, I'm not so surprised at the attitudes of some posters here. Aviation is a peculiar industry in that it can only provide a safe service if its employees adhere absolutely to rules and SOPs, and obey others without question. However, the industry exists for the sole purpose of servicing human beings who are NOT trained in that strict obedience. Moreover, airlines are hugely keen to sell themselves on the basis of providing a comfortable and effortless service - the last thing they want is pax feeling intimidated by quasi-military authoritarianism. I can see why those who must conform to strict rules and discipline resent those who don't - but the resentment is unfair and irrational. Airlines can't exist without passengers, and passengers are simply people paying money to get from one place to another, not volunteers enlisting in the marines.
like many people I'd be travelling with just a barcode/boarding card on my smartphone. I'm fairly sure I'd resist, purely on the basis that I was safer on a plane full of people than in a secluded part of the airport with these three large, threatening men whose link to official police seemed unconvincing. I'd be especially scared if I were elderly (actually, I am), small (yup, that too), and Asian (I'm not) in a country where Asian people had been attacked or murdered in 'safe' situations. So this man's reaction seems wholly understandable to me, and the idea that he should have smiled and gone along with the whole deal sounds like the view of someone inured to unquestioning obedience.
As someone who married into a family of aviation professionals, I'm not so surprised at the attitudes of some posters here. Aviation is a peculiar industry in that it can only provide a safe service if its employees adhere absolutely to rules and SOPs, and obey others without question. However, the industry exists for the sole purpose of servicing human beings who are NOT trained in that strict obedience. Moreover, airlines are hugely keen to sell themselves on the basis of providing a comfortable and effortless service - the last thing they want is pax feeling intimidated by quasi-military authoritarianism. I can see why those who must conform to strict rules and discipline resent those who don't - but the resentment is unfair and irrational. Airlines can't exist without passengers, and passengers are simply people paying money to get from one place to another, not volunteers enlisting in the marines.