PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html)

West Coast 10th Apr 2017 21:50

Grizzled

You're 100% wrong. Airlines can remove pax from planes for doing absolutely nothing wrong, when the only reason is the seat is needed. Prove me wrong with chapter and verse then I'll show where you're wrong.

DaveReidUK 10th Apr 2017 21:57

Why don't you just show the OP where they are wrong, anyway ?

United's Conditions of Carriage are freely available on the Net. To save space, perhaps you could just quote the part that applies in this instance ?

Jet II 10th Apr 2017 22:03


Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 9735347)
This 'doctor' doesn't appear to be mentally stable as he races down the aisle after reboarding the plane and chants 'I have to go home, I have to go home':

https://twitter.com/Tyler_Bridges/st...28695360663552

Well considering he had just been assaulted and knocked out I doubt that anyone, including you, would have been totally stable after that.

West Coast 10th Apr 2017 22:04

Dave
Or you could do your own research.

H97

Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?

Jet

He was knocked out now?

DaveReidUK 10th Apr 2017 22:10


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9735519)
Dave
Or you could do your own research.

So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

Hmmm.

West Coast 10th Apr 2017 22:15

Waiting for those who've asserted that what happened was illegal, what UA did was wrong and that they are ripe for a lawsuit to back their claim.

Gertrude the Wombat 10th Apr 2017 22:16


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9735519)
Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?

So this is going to cost them millions, and you're saying there was someone who prevented them from solving the problem orders of magnitude cheaper? - then maybe that someone should be forking out the millions?


Go on, tell us, who was it?

Jet II 10th Apr 2017 22:16


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9735519)
Dave
Or you could do your own research.

H97

Are you aware that Airlines are limited on what they can offer?

Jet

He was knocked out now?

Well he was slammed into the armrest and he certainly didn't look conscious when he was dragged off the aircraft.



Chesty Morgan 10th Apr 2017 22:16


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 9735521)
So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

Hmmm.

SOP for dear old Westy...

Airbubba 10th Apr 2017 22:19


Originally Posted by Jet II (Post 9735516)
Well considering he had just been assaulted and knocked out I doubt that anyone, including you, would have been totally stable after that.

Agreed, but if you've ever dealt with a friend or family member who is having a manic episode, sometimes they can be very combative when you are trying to help them. Might not be the case here but I would not be in such a rush to pass judgement on the handling of this incident until more is known.

Journey Man 10th Apr 2017 22:23


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9735519)
Dave
Or you could do your own research.

This doesn't fit "Denied Boarding", as he was boarded. From United's terms, I can't see which of the below clauses the passenger fell foul of?


RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.

Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.

Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.

Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.

Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.

Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Gertrude the Wombat 10th Apr 2017 22:31


Originally Posted by Journey Man (Post 9735534)
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed

Gosh, Thought Police stuff! - you can the thrown off just for thinking something. Maybe they decided the pax who was assaulted and thrown off was only complying with the no-voice-calls rule unwillingly, that would do it.

Jet II 10th Apr 2017 22:33


Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 9735530)
Agreed, but if you've ever dealt with a friend or family member who is having a manic episode, sometimes they can be very combative when you are trying to help them. Might not be the case here but I would not be in such a rush to pass judgement on the handling of this incident until more is known.

Fair point - but I would just point out that he was a perfect pax up until they chucked him off the aircraft. After all he wasn't thrown off because he was disruptive - it was because the 'computer' picked his name out at random.

Katamarino 10th Apr 2017 22:33


Passengers who ... may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
This is my favourite. If you might be capable of resisting, you can't fly. What the hell is that meant to mean?

Local Variation 10th Apr 2017 22:34

Possibly this one.

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

PAXboy 10th Apr 2017 22:35

The United staff had forgotten the lesson about breaking guitars (2008) despite saying at the time that they wanted to learn from it. But, for compensation, you can be sure that there are limits the staff can go to and, probably, those limits have always worked. Going higher needs phone calls to those nowhere near the problem who will, probably, tell them to stick to the rules. The staff know this.

To understand the lack of authority that agents and crew have, read 'From Worst To First' by Gordon Bethune and how he turned Continental around. One of the key problems in their customer 'service' was that the staff were tied down by rules set by managers who did not have to implement them, overseen by accountants who could not see the big picture and did not understand 'service'.

Guess who bought Continental ...? :hmm:

West Coast 10th Apr 2017 22:48

Kat

Prisoners are routinely carried escorted with one or two LEOs depending on level of risk.Same with witnesses, runaways, etc. They're a risk to be considered.

rotornut 10th Apr 2017 22:51

I was right. It's gone mainstream news all over the world: Indian Express, South China Morning Post, to name a few. I guess maybe a few UA people might be up fairly late this evening.

mickjoebill 10th Apr 2017 22:52


Originally Posted by marconiphone (Post 9735030)
If that was the only way of solving a problem, something is seriously, seriously wrong with the industry.

It reflects the way many authorities in the USA deal with the public on the street.

All United had to do was to keep doubling the compensation until someone said yes?

ExSp33db1rd 10th Apr 2017 22:56


That guy sure gets the drama queen award
Why, he was - apparently ? - just sat there minding his own business when they ordered him off. I would not have been happy, either.

Mind you - if they'd offered enough cash to re-book ...... !

HEMS driver 10th Apr 2017 22:56

United's Contract of Carriage

It talks about "denying boarding," but this pax had already boarded.

TampaSLF 10th Apr 2017 22:57


Originally Posted by grizzled (Post 9735388)
West Coast,
Your posts neatly summarize what is so problematic with the concept of "acceptable behavior" in the USA today. For police, and perhaps other agents of government, it means violence is an accepted and even expected response to a citizen exercising his / her rights...
More importantly, for you to suggest that quiet acquiescence is the proper response to unfair action by authorities shows how far the USA has drifted from its core founding principles. I wonder what the Founding Fathers, or the folks in Boston Harbor in 1773, would think. Perhaps you should find a quiet spot and read some Thoreau...

Agreed: it is a heartbreaking phenomena where fear filled Americans believe that compliance to maintain order is to be patriotic. In short, my country has gone :mad: insane. Guys like Jefferson and Patrick Henry would be waterboarded and in some Federal prison...
ON TOPIC: I fly. Lots. Not on UA anymore. I resisted them, now I LOATH them. I say "no" to police state tactics used by corporations, and I say it with my $$.
Much respects to all you pro drivers and crew supporting the passengers right to not be battered. :)
Back to lurking for another 4 years or so.

portmanteau 10th Apr 2017 22:58

When you are in a hole, stop digging. The moment ground staff found out that no one wanted to give up their seat, the plan to replace four paying pax with company men should have been ditched. No ifs or buts.
United Breaks People is the next hit song.

Journey Man 10th Apr 2017 23:00


Originally Posted by Local Variation (Post 9735543)
Possibly this one.

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

Sat in his seat? Surely everyone sat in their seats should be removed? If you mean interfering with dead heading company employees... they aren't members of that flight's crew.

Airbubba 10th Apr 2017 23:04


Originally Posted by Jet II (Post 9735539)
Fair point - but I would just point out that he was a perfect pax up until they chucked him off the aircraft.

According to the police report:


At approximately 6:00 p.m., a 69-year-old male Asian airline passenger become irate after he was asked to disembark from a flight that was oversold. The passenger in question began yelling to voice his displeasure at which point Aviation Police were summoned.
Did he just pitch a fit at the wrong time and place and the police overreacted? Or did his behavior become increasingly bizarre signaling an episode of some mental disorder?

Local Variation 10th Apr 2017 23:10

Journey Man,

If said passenger fell foul of the random tombolla and refused to leave as requested by crew, then he could potentially be non-compliant on the clause 'failing to comply with the duties of the members of the flight crew'

West Coast 10th Apr 2017 23:11

Port

There's a good chance the DH crew was onboard to head to assignments. Missing that flight potentially meant cancelling subsequent flights for significant numbers of pax. Moving crew around in the cabin is a part of airline life.

PAXboy 10th Apr 2017 23:12

Airbubba

Or did his behavior become increasingly bizarre signaling an episode of some mental disorder?
We have no means of knowing what pressures of work and family this man was under. We cannot begin to judge him.

United have a proven track record in customer service. :eek:

HEMS driver 10th Apr 2017 23:16

Yes they do, and it's not good. :E

JumpJumpJump 10th Apr 2017 23:17

I imagine that this is going to be quite a mess to sort out....

First, regarding whether or not United offloaded the passenger within the remit of their Ts and Cs. Second if the Responsibility for the police being called will fall at the customer services/ complaint handling of United or Republic (who operated the flight) and thirdly, and most difficult if the physical injuries, and moral damage was caused by United or the Police service, I think that there is going to be a hell of a lot of finger pointing and posturing before any setlement is made. I also wonder if United/Republic/both will take the Police service to court for damages over this incident, as ultimately, the responsibility for the passengers injuries must lay at the feet of the officers on the aircraft.

I have no idea about my next question, as this resulted in the injury of a passenger onboard a US reg aircraft, will the NTSB get involved and make a report on the incident? or do they only care when the engines are running?

DaveReidUK 10th Apr 2017 23:18


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 9735521)

Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 9735519)
Dave
Or you could do your own research.

So you're making an assertion about the rules that you claim apply, but you're unwilling/unable to actually quote them.

I'll take that as a "no", then ... :ugh:

John Marsh 10th Apr 2017 23:19

HEMS driver:


This pax was not disruptive, not drunk, not a threat to security.
...but strictly speaking, he was a potential threat to safety. In this mess created by UA, he refused to vacate a seat needed by someone else. No takeoff without all being seated.

Was this explained to him?

grizzled:


United will suffer in so many ways from this. Including, I'm sure, at the hands of the late night comedy shows in the USA tonight.
Correct! It's an absolute gift.

ZFT 10th Apr 2017 23:19

I'm not sure what I find more bizarre, the actions of these UAL representatives or posters trying to justify their actions! 3 burly men against a 69 year old doctor!

JumpJumpJump 10th Apr 2017 23:25

United didn't physically manhandle the customer and most likely did not instruct the officers to use violence...... or do you think they were like the M in the James Bond films.... "Make it look like an accident 007"?

tubby linton 10th Apr 2017 23:25

United's contract of carriage. It is only a mere 36876 words . Perhaps somebody can find a clause which alllows an airline to behave like this.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx

DaveReidUK 10th Apr 2017 23:26


Originally Posted by JumpJumpJump (Post 9735576)
I have no idea about my next question, as this resulted in the injury of a passenger onboard a US reg aircraft, will the NTSB get involved and make a report on the incident? or do they only care when the engines are running?

ICAO Annex 13 applies from the time that anyone boards an aircraft with the intention of flight.

But it specifically excludes injuries to those on board that have been inflicted by other persons.

newfoundglory 10th Apr 2017 23:29

This is just completely crazy to me.

UA are in the news apologizing for the 'overbook situation'. What overbook situation?

It sounds like there was a need between post-boarding and pre-departure to suddenly create 4 seats for staff on STANDBY.

That is not an overbook situation.

Journey Man 10th Apr 2017 23:30


Originally Posted by John Marsh (Post 9735581)
Waas this explained to him?

I think they only got as far as RNAV 5 before he was hauled off...

tonyhap 10th Apr 2017 23:45

Is it really UA's fault? Is it not the fault of the police persons who got excessively rough and physical? Why did their training not kick in and give them second thoughts on using strong arm tactics? Why did those police persons not suggest to the CC that they were not prepared to use physical force of that degree? And suggest to the CC that a more civilised solution should be found?

grizzled 10th Apr 2017 23:46

newfoundglory

I was just thinking the same thing: The CEO is apologizing for the wrong thing. It's a function of the power and speed of social media today that companies fall behind so quickly (in terms of PR ramifications) and then simply cannot overcome the tsunami.

Having said that, I'm sure the Chief Spin Docs at UA are with the CEO right now, trying to compose some "press releases" (which today don't involve the "press" at all) and come up with a damage control strategy, which is also nearly impossible today due to the internet.

The younger folks on here should look up "Marshall McLuhan"...


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:22.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.