|
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
(Post 9740190)
There is a mess of overlapping parties. A United gate agent summoned airport security officers, who work for the city. The crew that operated the aircraft—as well as the crew members who arrived after a full plane had been boarded, resulting in United telling four passengers they had to get off the flight—worked for Republic.[/url]
United pilots: ALPA (as far as I know they were not directly involved in the incident) United customer service representatives: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Republic pilots: Teamsters Republic flight attendants: Teamsters Chicago Aviation Police: Service Employees International Union
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
(Post 9740190)
The pilot's letter reflects their frustration after United became the subject of public outrage from the U.S. to China, as well as memes, jokes and unwanted congressional attention.
April 13, 2017 UAL MEC Statement Regarding United Express Flight 3411 As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated. The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation. It is important to review these baseline facts: 1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel. 2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation. 3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department. 4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines. 5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline. On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement. For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger. Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat. United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well. Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again. |
2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation. The United gate agent didn't physically touch Dr. Dao, but by initiating the chain of events was indeed involved. |
Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers.. |
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think the United vs Republic debate is the airline talking out of both sides of their mouth
United (and all the other US majors) set up a system where mainline flying was outsourced to the lowest bidder. Republic is generally acknowledged as the scummiest of a rather pathetic collection of US Regional airlines. When those regionals were beefing up the bosses bonuses by driving down pay and work conditions , they where "an Integral and Essential part of the United family " to quote from Mr Munez. So United attempts to run away from the operation they created is more than a little self serving. And speaking of self serving the United pilots union where complicit in United management plans of throwing the regional pilots under the bus, so what goes around comes around......... |
Originally Posted by _Phoenix
(Post 9740339)
Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.
|
No. I wasn't clear enough, I mean in general in media, as example Jimmy advertising.
|
United pilots are infuriated by this event. |
Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families. As I understand it we are discussing the events which led to the physical beating of a valid ticketed passenger, who committed no crime and who did not display any aggression toward anyone, but who was nevertheless physically removed from his allocated (and paid for) seat after boarding. Any impact should be on the airline management, who through their apparent failure to provide an adequate SOP to deal with such a situation, inculcated in it's staff the belief that the actions taken were the 'right way to go'. Nobody is blaming the company employees, this is a management issue. Dr.Dao is going to be a rich man very soon and he deserves to be so, simply for standing up for his rights in the face of the incredibly stupid and arrogant attitudes towards paying customers which are held by corporate business. Fair play to Dr.Dao! |
Originally Posted by ayroplain
(Post 9740370)
Is it only this (Republic) event or are they also infuriated by all the other disgraceful and humiliating events suffered by other UA mainline passengers on their watch?
|
United pilots are infuriated by this event. Perhaps those poor pilots will have some terrible anger management issues by now. Is there any chance they could claim some compensation, for being forced to endure such scenes? |
42,500 other United passengers were turned away from their flights against their wishes in the past 5 years. Perhaps those poor pilots will have some terrible anger management issues by now. Is there any chance they could claim some compensation, for being forced to endure such scenes? |
"For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger." (from United ALPA MEC release). Surely it's fortunate that the armed Chicago Police Dept WEREN'T called!
It would benefit the pilots and flight attendants if the squalid haggling over compensation for bumping were strictly done on the land side of the check-in NOT on the aircraft....more civilised perhaps if the last 5 or10% of economy seats were sold as unguaranteed standby seats to cater for connecting passengers or emergency staff movements Now Dr Dao and his lawyer have to weigh-up compensation bids from the airline orders of magnitude bigger $10m... $100m? against going to court |
Originally Posted by A30yoyo
(Post 9740412)
"For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger." (from United ALPA MEC release).
You are in a monumental hole stop digging for god's sake |
Originally Posted by _Phoenix
(Post 9740339)
Very true indeed. Bullying United should stop ,enough is enough. This isolated incident should not impact the 82k workers and their families.
|
Originally Posted by birmingham
(Post 9740417)
Drivel - United had no business calling law enforcement to a commercial dispute. They did and the whole world knows what happened.
You are in a monumental hole stop digging for god's sake ALPA should have STFU. Let Munoz take the hits. |
I dont think we should underestimate the complexities of the legal issues at play here.
I would imagine there could be several lawsuits involving the airline (who the pax likely had the contract with), the other airline operator and the city or police. Each may want to sue the other, and thats before we get to the plaintiff who was subjected to the removal. From watching the live steam of the lawyers, it seemed their focus was the Dr's serious injuries. Although there did seem to be interest in 'changing the industry' as a result of this incident. Its worth a watch if you haven't seen it. |
It seems the response by the UA unions crystallizes their complete disconnect from reality.
A UA passenger was assaulted and badly injured for the perceived convenience of UAL. Rather than attempt to look at how this happened, they deflect: for reasons unknown to us. This is a dangerously pathetic performance. They need to recognize that their industry has been getting away with murder and that this will probably now change. The union would be smarter to seize this opportunity to insist that their members be allowed to apply common sense, for the good of the entire enterprise. Else they risk going down with the ship, because this system will get adjusted somehow. |
"..getting away with murder.."? Hardly. Collectively, airlines barely make a profit. In the short term, nothing good ever comes from resisting force from authorities. If the doctor got up and walked off the aircraft, nothing would be heard. No harm done. His patients would have been looked after sooner or later.
In the long term, the doctor, (passenger), will benefit greatly from the lawsuit, and future passengers may benefit from legislation and/or policy changes. |
No question this is a UAL management problem and Munoz finally says so.
I choose to believe that a properly empowered PIC would not elect to have an unthreatening old man separated from family and forecefully physically ejected to solve an non urgent operational problem that could be solved in numerous other ways. |
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
|
Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?
If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up. |
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740451)
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
|
And to add to ZFT's point UA made over $2bn in profit last year.
|
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740451)
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
|
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740440)
"..getting away with murder.."? Hardly. Collectively, airlines barely make a profit. In the short term, nothing good ever comes from resisting force from authorities. If the doctor got up and walked off the aircraft, nothing would be heard. No harm done. His patients would have been looked after sooner or later.
In the long term, the doctor, (passenger), will benefit greatly from the lawsuit, and future passengers may benefit from legislation and/or policy changes. Monopolies become abusive until they are reined in by adjustments in the law. That is the US experience and I'd expect it to happen in this case as well if it goes to trial. Imho, the airline industry would be well served to come up very quickly with some new rules to ensure minimally adequate treatment of their passengers. Legislated requirements can be onerous and nonsensical, hence best avoided. Meanwhile, cudos to the doctor. He showed more courage than the entire load of passively videotaping passengers and crew. As Franklin said, those who would abandon liberty for the promise of safety will have neither. The doctor seems to be the only one on board who took that to heart. |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 9740453)
Where were the DH crew whilst all of this was going on? Were they still at the gate or were they actually on the aircraft?
If it were the latter, and judging by the arrogance of some on here, then I would not be at all surprised to find the waiting demi-gods adding to the pressure on the UA crew to reach a solution; regardless of who got beaten up. It's not like this crew just wanted to go to SDF for a good time. They were a either a pre-scheduled deadhead on reserved seats that were obviously released before they got to the gate or it was a last minute reserve crew needed to save a cancellation on the other end. Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court. |
Originally Posted by Photonic
(Post 9740268)
It's simple. In a safety-related issue like this (which was NOT the case with Dr. Dao), you offer apologies, sufficient compensation, and every effort to get that displaced pax where they need to go in a reasonable timeframe. Something like this:
"We're very sorry, but your seat is broken and we didn't spot it before boarding. It would be unsafe for you to fly in that seat. Here's $300 cash in partial compensation, a hotel room if necessary, and we will make every effort to get you to your destination ASAP, even if it means buying you a ticket on another carrier." Increase the offer if it means the pax was traveling with spouse and kids, if they don't want to fly separately. In a clear safety-related incident like that, with sufficient compensation, I think the number of pax you'd have trouble with would be extremely low. |
Originally Posted by Kewbick http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm.. |
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740451)
"..old man.."? He was 69, the new 50,...and why would age be a factor? Oh, wait a minute..at his age he should have enough wisdom NOT to resist authority for fear of bodily harm..
Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe. |
Originally Posted by cappt
(Post 9740488)
Bottom line management handcuffed the frontline employees from being able to solve this simple problem with proper compensation. Everybody has their price, now they can negotiate it in court.
|
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat
(Post 9740493)
I don't know what world you live in, but on my planet the prospect of bodily harm resulting from a commercial dispute would never have dreamt of occurring to me.
Please let me know where your planet is, so that I can avoid it and stick to civilised parts of the universe. |
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat
(Post 9740496)
It really is completely beyond my comprehension that some people don't seem to be able to get their heads round this very simple and completely correct analysis.
That said, such failures are much more likely when there are overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions, as was the case here. United ticket, Republic airplane and crew, who is really in charge? Clearly management was abrogated to the Airport Security, with predictable results. |
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740506)
The doctor was warned
|
I am appalled that some people on this thread are arguing about what "boarded" means. Many are stating that a passenger is not boarded until the door is closed. This boggles the mind. If that were the case why would there be separate clauses in the CoC for reasons that a passenger can be offloaded once seated than those for denied boarding.
If I were trying to defend United in this case I wouldn't try that line of reasoning in front of a jury. Unless you re-define the term "boarded" within the document the term boarded will be interpreted by the public, the legal system and anyone without an agenda to mean what it implies. It's like saying "that depends what your definition of is is". I am sure that if an airline defense attorney tried that in a trial he would be shredded by the plaintiff's attorney. Parsing words like this will only inflame a jury and lead to a higher punitive damage award. When reading the ToC it needs to be interpreted as a layperson would interpret it. |
Lockerbie took down Pan Am. |
Originally Posted by Jay Sata
(Post 9740525)
It appears the bad publicity continues.
United Airlines passenger 'stung by scorpion' on flight - BBC News United face an uphill battle. When you google United Airlines this story comes up top of the page. United Airlines passenger ordeal 'worse than fall of Saigon' - BBC News Nice PR for the stockmarket. Lockerbie took down Pan Am. The most elementary PR would be to displace the bad news with some coherent positive response, something that will shift the debate from UA's failure. Thus far, it is crickets, apart from a meaningless and belated apology, a promise to do better with no specifics and a reversal of the ticket charges for the people on that flight. That does not address the larger issue. UA is a leader among US airlines and this is their opportunity to lead, to offer a meaningful passenger bill of rights that would address the awful way passengers are currently treated in the US. That is in their own and the entire industries interest. If they wait till the Senate and the DoT act, they and Wall Street may not like the results so much. |
Who called the "Law enforcement officers"?
People supposedly, apparently, in the eyes of the passengers, working for UA, irrespective of whom they were actually working for. UA tickets, UA flight number, UA uniforms, UA logo on the aircraft. "Perception is reality" unfortunately for a lot of juries. "Asking" the "officers" to remove the passenger and departing the scene does not obsolve them of responsibility. Also were these "Officers" aware of their jurisdiction and powers? Had they been properly trained in such actions. It would appear not. A terrible mess. One that could lead to changes in law. I foresee a bunch of lawyers making big $$$$$$. High end car dealerships and real estate folks in both Chicago and Washington must be thrilled! |
I am a Brit and not an American, but am a massive fan of your great nation. However, I cannot help but notice one extremely disturbing aspect of American life - wildly out of control law enforcement agencies in all their many forms. What passes for normality in American life among security, immigration, police, sheriffs, constables, DEA officials etc is just mind blowing to people outside the USA. Americans have a deep love for law enforcement, which is fine, but it seems to make them oblivious to the crazy excesses of the various agents who work within the system. They are often staggeringly rude, ill-mannered and objectionable people who feel empowered to do almost anthing they want whilst on duty. The conclusion I have come to is that their training is fundamentally flawed and they are rarely held accountable for their appalling lack of skill in dealing with difficult people situations. I have observed it so often in the countless embarrassing, and frankly shameful, PR disasters that regularly beset US law enforcement that I can come to no other conclusion. It seems to me that this awful incident with United Airlines is yet another example of over-zealous and under-trained security staff who acted like Nazi thugs, and yet somehow believed their behavior was 'reasonable'. I cannot say this could never happen in Europe but I can say it is infinitely less likely due to the enormous constraints put on police and security staff actions compared to the US. Hopefully they will lose their jobs, but I am intrigued that Munos initially tried to justify this, thus showing an astonishing deference to law enforcement and seemingly accepting of their excesses. Somehow he felt an aggravated assault on a 69 year-old doctor was an appropriate response because he was being difficult. The guy himself will make a fortune but it does not deal with the unqualified support so often given to law enforcement by the American middle classes. It is a remarkable, yet very dangerous, phenomenon that seems peculiarly American.
|
I wasn't going to post again but I can scarcely believe the quantity and low quality of ill informed comment.
Someone asked me what I would have done if I had been the captain. My reply: Bas: (To despatcher) "Let me know when YOUR problem is resolved." |
Originally Posted by Kewbick
(Post 9740506)
I am not defending United Airlines. The doctor was warned, and then at the point of being dragged, he could have submitted, and walked off the aircraft. He made a decision. Being dragged, in my opinion, is choosing to make a statement. Regardless of his verbal protestations, I think he thought to himself "just how far will these idiots take this?"
Just like Rosa Parks. He made a decision. He will be thought of highly by the travelling public. He made a decision. What world do you live in? Would you have walked after being warned, or would you sit and choose to be dragged. Just saying.. He made a decision. And he won. With bruises. Personally, I would have walked off the aircraft. I am not that stubborn to risk bodily harm. I do not want to be a martyr. If a police office asks me to get out of my car, I will not say "What the f**k for?" I will get out of my car. That is the kind of world I live in. This passenger had no need to ask why he was being told to leave: he knew he had been arbitrarily selected, through no fault of his own, to be thrown off the flight for reasons of commercial convenience. That's not the same as being stopped by a police patrol. What the airline and several here on pprune seem not to appreciate is that it is the dismissing, minimising and rationalising of this event that has vastly magnified it. People are shocked that it happened, but are outraged by attempts to justify or mitigate it. If you value 'the rules' and see this event as falling within those rules, or as 'reasonable' given the passenger's conduct, then tread carefully or you'll see those rules promptly torn up by legislation: the view of society will now be that anything that makes this event 'right' is wrong and must not stand unchanged. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.