Ready to be corrected but I think that a 1st Class pax travelling on a ticket issued 100% in return for airmiles may have a lower boarding priority than a pax who has paid money up front, however, when boarding commences the flight is usually officially 'closed', that can mean no more tickets accepted and turning up with a full 1st class ticket, fare paid after the flight has closed may only get you an assurance you will be firm booked on the next available flight. Staff may try to get a voluntary downgrade or offload, that will be an internal affair.

Once again, for those that still seem to be in doubt, the seating and boarding are entirely the responsibility of the ground staff, right up to the General Manager - Traffic, of the airline. The Captain, F/O and Cabin Crew are responsible for the safe operation of the flight.

It is interesting that the Doctor's lawyers are concentrating on the personal injury and humiliation aspect, a stone cold certainty and where the big money is, rather than involving themselves in boarding and seating disputes which, by comparison, pale into insignificance.

Hammer... nail... THUMP.

It's effectively admitting there were two parallel sets of procedures - the 'public' CoC and the 'internal' policies and procedures which in some areas took little or no account of the CoC. Those two words - "effective immediately" - may just have landed UAL in a whole bunch more legal hurt; they're effectively admitting that they had policies and customary practices which made toilet paper of their CoC.

And I suspect they're far from alone in the industry in that respect; they're just the ones who got most egregiously caught.

I find it quite interesting how all those posters who said something along the lines of 'nothing happens without my approval' or 'I'm the commander, I make the calls' have gone awfully quiet recently.

If this incident does indeed reveal the PiC was, at least partially, responsible for the forceful eviction of Mr. Dao, those words may well come back to haunt them.

This incident may well result in a thorough, and much needed, clarification of how and when responsibility passes from ground to cockpit.

These shocking stories make me wonder how on earth any of the Big 3 flying disgraces are still in business - they are all as bad as each other.

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is responsible. Are airlines going to argue, in front of a county or federal court, that the captain is not completely in command when an aircraft is at the gate?

The phrase be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

Probably a moot point anyway, as this would be difficult to argue, and must already be written down somewhere in law.

How about a fire breaking out during boarding, who is responsible for ordering EVAC?
[... the gate agent, because they are performing the boarding process and the captain hasn't yet 'taken command' and doors aren't closed?]

I find it hard to believe that a gate agent would have boarded that flight and said to the pax '4 of you need to leave' without either the Captain's knowledge and/or blessing.

Agreed.
I don't think I quite fit in that category but......
If I had been the captain of that flight I would right now be feeling significant responsibility for the event and be thinking of all the different actions/communications/ management techniques I could have employed that would have resulted in a different outcome.
This could easily have happened on one of my flights as I usually defer to the expertise of both senior cabin crew and ground based personnel in situations like this. In the future I will want to quickly and quietly meet with anyone boarding the aircraft to offload a passenger to gauge their attitude/ competence/ expertise etc.

And I as pax would want you to be on the flight deck checking and preparing for flight of an aircraft in an ordered, cool, calm and collected manner, having a firm reliance on ground staff to do their jobs as they properly should. Dealing with passengers before the aircraft has moved should not be added to your workload.

The lawyers for the plaintiff, from the video, are saying the captain is 100% responsible. Are airlines going to argue, in front of a county or federal court, that the captain is not completely in command when an aircraft is at the gate?

My first reaction to the lawyers claim is that there is some ignorance here. The doors are open, the a/c is not 'in flight' and has not yet departed. The engineers would be in charge of dispatching the a/c from a maintenance point of view; the state manager/dispatcher is responsible for ensuring the correct passengers are on board, and solving any consequential problems. The captain might become involved if there is a safety issue towards the a/c or the personnel. Neither was the case, so I fail to understand how the captain can be held responsible for a decision & chain of events that they were never at any time involved with. Even if the doors had closed and they were taxying, and the station manager ordered a 'return to gate' I suspect the captain would comply. So, IMHO, there are times when the captain is NOT 100% in charge of what happens to/with the a/c. It is his toy to do with as ordered by the company not as he would if he owned the football.

As captain I would not be best pleased if someone tried to lay this debacle at my door. The only way that could happen is if the captain intervened and instructed the bouncers to 'remove' the pax.

OK RAT 5, in this case as a Captain would you have to be informed as to what's going on (e.g. if Police were coming on board after someone)? Would you become involved if you knew there is a safety issue towards some of the passengers on board the a/c?

We are in uncharted waters
 

We are still here framer. We are waiting for some definitive answers to some simple questions. The biggest one is when is passenger boarded? Another is if you or the "system" decides passenger X can NOT be flown, what is the status of that passenger and what is the status of the Captain of that flight immediately after that decision has been taken? Lastly, which rules apply to a passenger who has been, for want of a better word, "deplaned"? Do the airports now bylaws apply or do national laws take precidence? These are grey areas which have not been tested until now. And let's remember, we are talking about legal definitions which may not be the same as common English language usage. Once these have been answered, the rest of this debacle can be dealt with. This will determine the culpability of the Captain and the enforcement staff who ejected the Doctor. Certainly if I was one of the latter I'd want this sorted first. What do do not think us up for dispute is that UA broke their contact with this passenger.

In the case cited the vehicle wasn't "recreational"; it was a piece of mobility kit for a man with a spinal injury/deformation.

But again, the man took the trouble to call well in advance and check. He has every right to feel aggrieved.

I really think some of the pilots on here need to reign-in the egos a bit.

Bouncers is too grand a word for the vicious and cowardly thugs that carried out this supreme act of violence on the instructions of someone employed directly or indirectly by United Airlines. Any crew (flight or cabin) who just stood by and allowed this to happen on board the aircraft they were assigned to manage are just as guilty.

PDR1 - Ego? I think not. People have asked a question, DR got the facts and posted them. And then you didn't bother to read them. Otherwise you would not have missed the second clause "...or device designed to carry one or more persons..." which I think covers mobility aids. I'll agree that again this was poorly handled, but this is typical of today's customer services, not just UA. Try dealing with the half witted, pernicious, grasping, don't give a toss cretins at a well known mobile phone provider. They make UA look saints by comparison.

I would like to think that any flight crew would NOT get involved in ANY dispute on the ground whilst preparing for their flight and not be expected to in any circumstances.

Those who think it a good idea to involve the crew in what may turn into a stressful situation prior to flight would do well to recall BE548.

Air travel used to be a fast way to travel, exciting, pleasurable and safe. We have lost most of that, lets not jeopardize the safety aspect.

Agreed

I think you are better of being aware of issue and trying your best to resolve he situation than sitting behind a locked door in ignorance. You can try and duck responsibility, only to have responsibility find you in the courtroom. That said, I really want the pilots doing their pre-flight stuff without disturbance, which is why this should all be resolved before the aircraft.


The dividing line beyond ground staff responsibility and PIC responsibility is I suspect fairly blurred.

The CofC are reviewed from time to time, but have their origin decades ago:
1. A time when the Captain often stood near the door while Pax boarding.
2. And a time when pax might walk across the tarmac to board (even now is is sometimes a bus ride to the aircraft ). This meant the pax had passed through the gate sometime and some distance away, and any senior ground staff are some distance away.
Under both these conditions, it is not unreasonable for the PIC to have a lot of responsibility for any difficulties with final boarding / seating. On smaller planes they still do - sometimes moving pax around to help balance load.

Again, I suspect the airline's legal departments have always considered "denied boarding" and "deplaning" as quite different processes. Over many years CC, and ground staff and pilots may have pragmatically equated the two situations as simply "You were going to fly but now you aren't." But I suspect there has been a critical distinction in the legal department thinking and the the CofC. Frontline staff are perhaps now learning this distinction.

Look at it from legals perspective
1. Involuntary deplaning is high profile and high risk = avoid this at all costs
2. Want pilots quarantined from these issues. Ground staff are into people management. Pilots are into flight management.
3. Easier to be chasing a ground staff member for a report / answering a complaint than chasing a pilot.

So deny boarding for commercial reasons. Once you are on you are on - possession = 99% ownership. You only deplane someone for operational reasons - which is PIC call.

Anyway we can see where this is going:
1. Some LEO are saying deplaning isn't their responsibility. Its an airline problem to solve. More LEO will soon be thinking this way.
2. Pilots will reaffirm they don't want this problem (I believe as per the original intent of legal and CofC). If someone is in a seat and no operational reason to deplane, they ride.
3. Pax aren't going to tolerate deplaning in favour of repositioning crew. They now know their rights
4. No airline (nor anyone else) wants a repeat

So CofC will be clarified, and won't be subjugated by DH crew.
PIC will likely end up aware they carry at least some responsibility for everything on board - mitigate this by not deplaning pax unless operationally necessary. And if necessary, expect a very scripted and company approved process.

Yes, but a word doesn't have a legal definition unless it's defined legally. :O

In other words, a court will rule that every term in a contract has its everyday meaning, by default, unless it has a more specific meaning defined in the contract preamble.

There is no such specific meaning offered for "boarding" in the Conditions of Carriage so, as previous posters have pointed out, anyone trying to claim that a passenger sitting in his/her assigned seat hasn't "boarded" will be laughed out of court.

@DingerX
DingerX, personally I would argue if flight crew are on the deck and preflighting and pax are boarding (after confirmation from flight crew that plane is good to board), then PIC has accepted jet - and assumed significant responsibility.

This thread has demonstrated a fair bit of heterogeneity about the limits of PIC authority and responsibility. It appears likely these limits will now be defined elsewhere. There is one fundamental constant however - responsibility and authority always go hand in hand, and they will remain the opposite faces of the same coin.

Who's in charge, doors open?
Captain has accepted the a/c; station manager informs him that the company has ordered him off the a/c and to return to the crew room, no information known. What does the captain do; he wants to go home? Who's in charge?
Captain has accepted the a/c; station manager informs him that the company has ordered him, the station manager, to off-load 4 pax to allow DH crew. What does the captain do; he wants to go home? Who's in charge?

IMHO the captain can not be held responsible for the 'assault' on the pax because he had no knowledge of it nor could have been expected to anticipate it. I've only had one occasion to off-load a pax on arrival. They had refused CA orders during the flight. Station manger altered before arrival. He arrived with suitably imposing police officers and the pax was escorted off in civil manner, in full view of all the pax, to applause. The Station Manager was in charge of the whole affair and coordinated any prosecution on behalf of the company. I just wrote a report and disappeared PDQ to the hotel.

There is a thread on JB discussing 'volunteers.' I wonder what others might do if they were the victim: you are a legitimate pax with full fare ticket and seated. Some unknown bouncer type guys start ordering you around in a manner you consider unlawful. They are not police and you have committed no offence. They then start to 'attack and man-handle you in an unacceptable manner.' You strike out to defend yourself. What then? They flatten you into pulp and charge you with assault? That can't charge you with resisting arrest; that doesn't apply. So if you resist in such a way as needed to defend your person what could be the consequences? You are not a volunteer, but have been declared one. (read JB)

Captains have very little say in boarding-related matters. Airlines have systematically eroded captain authority to the point that captains have actually been reported to police for interfering with gate agent duties.

Everyone wants to see this captain hung out to dry because he didn't act to intervene. Pilots are perceived as sky gods by many, neutered by company policies in reality, and thrown under the bus when the company or traveling public need an 'out'.

You can't have it all ways. It's part of the reason this job isn't worth that much anymore.

I agree - from a legal standpoint it isnt even the Captains aircraft until Engineering have signed off all their paperwork and the Captain signs to accept the aircraft.

Of course the Captain will have some responsibility for the Airline operation as regards passengers and freight but even that seems a rather grey area (as shown by this thread)

He didn't say that

Some folks are implying that's what he meant. The comment was made in a conversational tone implying to me that sometimes it applies.

I don't think thats true. I don't believe any of us know all the circumstances, but my feeling is most people are not blaming the pilot.

Personally I feel sorry for all concerned - the pax obviously, but also the staff and the LEO. No one wanted this. No one. It quickly spiralled out of control and went somewhere no-one anticipated. There were some latent risks, and in this case the holes started lining up.

But in general (and not pertaining specifically to this case), I suspect PIC are at risk of getting caught up if someone else makes an error or oversteps his/her authority. If there is a major problem onboard, then I don't think a suggestion that PIC has zero responsibility will fly.

Overall I think the public treats pilots with a substantial degree of respect and esteem. However the attitude of a few here doesn't help. And all sorts of people read this site.

If there is a major problem onboard, then I don't think a suggestion that PIC has zero responsibility will fly.

I know what you mean, and in this case it is also a question of who created the major problem. What is unfortunate to this bar-room discussion is we may never know the outcome of any UAL internal enquiry. I'm sure we will discover the outcome of any claim by the pax. That will be very public. The night off the long knives will be very private, I'm sure; unless some one falls on their sword conspicuously.

No, not everyone. I want to see United hung out to dry (and of course the thug who actually committed the assault needs to go to prison), but beyond that I'm happy for the courts to decide where in the various corporate structures which responsibilities lie.

What surprises me with everyone now having a camera in their hand is why this sort of situation has taken so long to actually occur and why protocols to protect the airline were not drawn up for circumstances like this. Image if this was someone returning for a funeral/end of life situation being asked to miss a loved one slipping away?

The second thing is why did security went all ballistic initially? There are a number of basic methods including non-confrontational/physical methods. I would expect a pub bouncer to have more acumen than those who perpetrated the alleged assault on the Doctor.

Finally, as this was spiraling out of control, where was the voice of reason from a senior ground crew member? Phones recording the carnage everywhere videoing a paying passenger bleeding, being dragged from the plane... what could possibly go wrong?

From what I can see is that there are too many people with the word "security" in the USA not adequately trained in avoiding conflicts and that UAL have some serious issues with how they manage risky situations. Chartering a six seater aircraft and a taxi fare either end, may have saved the airline and the bosses job. I've never had a bad experience with United and wish the staff all the best but please grow some cojones when it's going tits up.

We don't know what the LEO's were told by whoever summoned them - possibly they were told he'd been disruptive and dangerous. In that case, the person who misrepresented the situation is significantly to blame.

I note that an eyewitness said that the person who tried to obtain 'volunteers' was less than pleasant:

That's part of the story, but I believe a larger part stems from the propensity of power to corrupt. Our post-9/11 security hysteria has placed, in the hands of flight attendants, gate staff, and pretty much everyone employed at an airport, the power to ruin anyone's day by labeling them a 'security threat'.

In the past, none of the hiring or training practices for those positions needed to be particularly nuanced at screening out those with a propensity to bully or with similar psychiatric impairments, because they had little power to harrass others. With that having changed, the hiring, screening, training, and supervisory practices may have been slow to catch up.

A lot of people seem to be arguing about what "boarded" means.

But in this case it seems to be irrelevant, as UL was not allowed to deny the good Dr boarding, even at the gate.

CFR 250.2a says
This was not an oversold flight, unless we count the DH crew as having confirmed reserved space.

We should then note the definition of "confirmed reserved space"

Also note the definition of "Zero fare ticket"

So DH crew, even if booked in on the flight, do not count as a "confirmed reservation" and therefore do not get priority over fare paying passengers. A fare paying passenger can not be denied boarding in favour of a DH crew. To do so would be illegal, no matter what UL's CoC or company policy says.

UL simply can't legally deny a passenger boarding because they want to board a DH crew. Of course they can make an offer sufficiently big enough that someone voluntarily decides to give up their seat.

In my mind, the definition of boarding is irrelevant in this case, as UL were not legally able to deny boarding to the Dr, in favour of their crew.

I believe that anyone who grew up in the US, and thinks back to his or her high school class, and thinks of their classmates who went into low-level law-enforcement, has the answer to this question.

Well-managed and prestigious police departments do an excellent job of attracting people interested in public service, and screening out those who are attracted to the profession because they enjoy exercising power. The rest of the profession is left with less choice and fewer options in hiring.

It is time for corporate culture at United to change. I too have seen their practice of lying to customers on many occasions. Ever hear of "flight cancelled due to weather at the destination airport" when you can pull up the METARs and TAFs and the conditions are CAVOK? This is done so that compensation does not need to be paid to the PAX for the cancelled flight.

The bottom line is that you may not make money on every flight. Flaunting the law in order to gain the lowest cost passage for a DH crew is an example of this. The founder of the company where I work as an executive once famously said "I would rather lose money than reputation". This is pounded into the employee's brains with each and every mandatory training we receive several times a year.

If ever a nail was hit on the head this is it.

In addition, this very fact entices all sorts of otherwise non-entity and undesirable types into an industry that grants them that power and they revel in it, accountable to nobody. That's why, in this instance, you had these vicious thugs arriving on board and, when they saw a helpless elderly man who was prepared to stand up for his rights, took particular pleasure in pulling him out of his seat, bashing his head off the seat opposite and then dragging him out like a sack of potatoes. Disgraceful that they have only been suspended instead of being charged with causing GBH and remanded in custody. If this sort of thuggery is not punished to the maximum it will serve as no example to others of the same mind.

The fact is any company can do whatever they want, whenever they want. If you have stuck to your side if the bargain, and the other side do not supply what they are contractually bound to do, then your remedy is to be found in the civil courts. Unboarded, deplaned, evicted, denied boarding it doesn't matter. So whether the positioning crew were late, no charge rebates, top priority - must fly is irrelevant. Someone somewhere decided this man had to get off. His status, rights and entitlement changed as soon as that decision was made. It is just a shame that some believe he had an absolute human right to insist that he was taken on that flight. That has never, ever been how this part of the world works.

I think you can pretty much summarise this whole incident in one phrase

'The Death of Common Sense' which was the title of a book published in the US in 1994 and on the first page has the comment

'The book provides numerous examples of how bureaucratic rigidity, costly and ineffective regulation, and overly complex procedural rules have superseded good judgement and common sense'

Whwere was the common sense from the gate staff realising there would be a problem with 4DH staff

Where was the common sense among the cabin crew before claling the cops

Where was the commons ense among the law enforcement officrs

Where was the common sense again among the cabin crew wehn this degenerates intoa bleeding man being dragged from the plane

Where was the common sense from the Flight deck who must have been aware of the kerfuffle down the back -it must have made alot of noise and surely the In chrge had to tell the Captain the cops were coming

Where was the common sense in UA management about flexibility when DH crews were being boarded- don't UA aircraft have a jump seat which one of them could have used allowing Dr Dao to keep his seat.

The answer of course is that it is really dead suffocated by processes, procedures and regulations which punish severly anyone who infringes them even if they are doing the right thing.

A story for our time

That attitude is why United will lose billions in this case. Everyone in business is bound by laws in the countries they operate in. In this case the PAX was within his rights under federal law and under his contract with the company. I remember a quote from a business text I read near the start of my career. "Don't mess with the eagle". The eagle is this case is federal law. United stands to pay a heavy price for asserting that it's operational convenience trumps federal law.

UAL stock has held up pretty well during this PR debacle.
That suggests investors, who presumably have access to competent legal guidance, are confident that no serious damage will be done to the enterprise.
Does UAL have some sort of insurance cover for errors and mistakes in passenger management?

United did NOT take David Dao's bags off plane | Daily Mail Online
... apologies if already posted
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/03

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...2223091029.jpg

Technically incorrect. His status in the eyes of UA might have changed, but his absolute rights under the CFR and UA's own CofC did NOT change. And that sir, is exactly what is going to bite UA in the arse.

In fact the only change in his status was from that of a boarded passenger with a confirmed reservation and a seat, to a boarded passenger with a confirmed reservation and a seat who had declined an offer to be voluntarily "re-accommodated" and who had even explained to United the reasons why he needed to be on that flight.

As effectively acknowledged by United's CEO, so who are any of us to argue with that ?

Interesting
Even if the pax had left the aircraft how long would the delay have been to find and offload his bags? Is that not required by law?

United have now modified their booking policy re staff travel, saying they will have to be confirmed, with seats allocated, at least one hour before a flight's departure.
United Airlines changes policy after 'horrific' passenger ordeal - BBC News