I guess US airlines have less regards for their Pax than in Europe. As I have seen the exact opposite happen, Crews been left behind.
This stinks bad management by the company, if you can't foresee this problem in advance than you should find another job. UA in this case should have offered more money until they got the seats they needed. You can have a business man missing a million dollar deal because suddenly the airline decides they want his ticket back. How will cover such consequential loss suffered by passengers how have paid their seat, and have been allowed to board? As long as they follow the rules, that seat belongs to the passengers, otherwise airlines would not be offering money to get the seats back. Regardless does not justify to remove an embarked passenger this barbaric way. |
The good doctor choose the method of eviction. There's nothing magical about making it through L1. There's no absolute rights when you're on private property. He could have simply walked off, he made the decision to push to situation as far as he did.
|
Originally Posted by peekay4
(Post 9735655)
We seem to have already forgotten that this was a Republic Airlines flight, and the incident could have happened as easily on one of Republic's other codeshares with American or Delta.
It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door). |
NEVER
I am a 69 year old male who spent 50 years in aviation, much of it in the cockpit.
I still travel a fair bit for business and pleasure. NEVER will I fly with United Airlines again. |
Originally Posted by HEMS driver
(Post 9735708)
It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door).
|
UAL can't have it both ways, i.e. when things are rosey they take credit, but when things go down the crapper they can't say it wasn't their flight. It says UNITED AIRLINES on the fuselage, not Republic Airlines (except in small letters next to the door). Were not the gate crew decisions made to accommodate a UAL deadheading crew?. I don't see the plane operating crew in this but perhaps more will come out in a formal investigation. |
After 50 years in the biz, ...
.... much of it in the cockpit I have one last trip from Canada to Austin, Texas on April 20th.
That will be my last trip to this totally :mad: up country. |
At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.
He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum. |
Originally Posted by twb3
(Post 9735163)
Bottom line is that it's United's aircraft. It would have been far better to deny boarding in the first place than to deboard a passenger, but the incident was escalated by the passenger refusing to leave the aircraft once told that he would not be accommodated on that flight.
. |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 9735715)
Regardless of the paint on the aircraft and the fine print over the door, isn't this about the boarding process as handled by a UAL gate crew?
Were not the gate crew decisions made to accommodate a UAL deadheading crew?. I don't see the plane operating crew in this but perhaps more will come out in a formal investigation. |
Mapquest lists this as a 5hr 13min drive. If upping the offer to take a later flight didn't get enough volunteers, then the airline could have had a driver drive the employees to their destination - driving wouldn't have taken much longer than the delay. Or they could have offered to drive the displaced passengers, or pay for rental cars. A lot of ways this could have been handled that would have resulted in far less bad publicity.
Then again, it could have been worse. This guy was a doctor. Imagine for a moment that he was a transplant doctor, and was rushing home because a heart had just been found for some child. Organs are only viable for a certain amount of time, and if the doctor was pulled off the flight..... |
Originally Posted by Pera
(Post 9735725)
At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.
He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9735714)
Nope, it says 'UNITEDEXPRESS' on the side of N632RW. :=
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima.../28/137944.jpg |
What are the facts here?
|
Cheap, Cheap, Cheap
Surely some sum short of $5,000 would have found a fourth volunteer.
The DH could have been put on another carrier, or a charter flight, but that might have cost more than $5,000. If the doc had patients waiting for scheduled surgery, they can sue UA for delayed treatment and the hospital can sue for lost OR time. |
Originally Posted by SeenItAll
(Post 9735736)
What are the facts here?
Police can not arrest for torts (civil issues) on an airline. To do so makes them an unlawful agent for the airline. Good luck in court, UAL, but they will settle for 6-7 figures with a confidentiality agreement without admitting that they did anything wrong. Then they will do this again. Wash, rinse, repeat. |
Originally Posted by Pera
(Post 9735725)
At some point this mentally suspect individual was given a choice. Get off the plane or you will be removed. His injuries are the result of his choices. He obviously had never been taught to share as a kid and thought that his belligerence would be rewarded (as it obviously has been before). He might think twice in the future.
He doesn't have a legal right to stay on the aircraft. He was told to leave. It's pretty simple. Obviously the PR issues are significant but in the end you just have to be part of society and sometimes that means you don't always get what you want. Individuals need to be adults. This guy was just throwing a tantrum. |
Rather be flying
You do know that Airlines can't simply offer whatever they want, or whatever a pax wants? |
people on this thread who are trying to justify this behavior by United (and to say that someone else did it is nit-picking) don't deserve to be in a service industry. Airlines exist because of their paying passengers: don't forget it!
|
there's a definite step change in COMPANY POLICY here.
It used to be "darn, everyone has turned up, what shall we do, we've entered into a paid contract, we need to convince someone to leave" now it's "We'll randomly pick people and kick them off the plane, yes "sir", that's not a euphemism, it could happen, I suggest you leave before we legally assault you" What is of concern is its COMPANY POLICY to do this now, as confirmed in the email above. "What? You're flying home to your mother's funeral, sorry "sir", company policy you see, right, someone assault him, quickly, we've not got time to waste" Your seat is no longer your seat, they used to have to buy it back off you. They can now deplane you because they feel like it, through no fault of your own, is that really of no concern to people who choose to fly with them. It would concern me. Won't concern the sheeple, their planes are still overbooked today. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.