|
Originally Posted by Claybird
(Post 9739006)
Yea, I don't disagree a trial is not going to look good for United, nor do I think they wish to have one. They will settle.
And just to clarify some things to the SLF who make comments about some of us being Gods or what not: I also don't disagree with what everyone else says here: that this kind of behavior demonstrated by the officers is condemnable and probably more. Yea, I'm pretty sure too that the company could have resolved this problem in a more professional, tactful and quiet matter. They should have. I do disagree, however, on whether he had a right to resist like this. But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court. You just don't put up this kind of temper tantrum on an airplane, even when you're right and I'm pretty sure this passenger was in the right. THAT'S my objection to the whole thing. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9738206)
You may have a point. This may well be a reportable incident for the FAA even if the aircraft didn't move for the purpose of flight. Should the crew have pulled the CVR circuit breaker? Did they? It might depend on what is in Republic's ops manual. And often this conflicts with guidance in the other manuals like the ones that the United gate agents have.
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 9738728)
There is nothing on the CVR after two hrs.
It designed to erase after 2 hrs, always.
Originally Posted by unworry
(Post 9738604)
How is it plausible that the E170's CVR from the 9th could have been over-written already ... ?
I find this claim from a less reputable forum a little hard to believe, but will stand corrected.
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9738660)
Most modern solid-state CVRs store 2 hours of recording.
Given that the aircraft in question flew (eventually) to Louisville, and then the following day operated 4 sectors with a total scheduled block time of over 8 hours, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect it to have been long since overwritten.
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4
(Post 9738787)
On the CVR discussion I don't think they could use it and not because of the 2 hour loop.
I don't know how it works on this type of aircraft but if it is sitting at the gate, door opened is the CVR actually recording? On some aircraft I have flown for the CVR to start recording the door must be closed and the beacon to be "ON", on some others it starts recording only on engine start up.
Originally Posted by slats11
(Post 9738763)
So a pax injured to the point of requiring hospital treatment while on board a flight - albeit plane parked at gate. If the CVR could shed any light on the events leading up to the incident, should not the CVR have been quarantined?
I'm pretty sure his aviation lawyers will know the 2 hour limit. But this "discovery" will add a bit more intrigue and public interest. And, I thought engines had to be running or at least the beacon needed to be on for the CVR to record but it turns out, on some planes at least, it runs whenever there is power on the aircraft. It's solid state so there is no tape to wear out, but still, this was news to me. The PSA CRJ-200 overrun into the EMAS at CRW in 2010 had the crew doing a shutdown checklist but getting interrupted by communications before they could pull the CVR breaker. The NTSB CVR transcript has a call to the union rep and other conversation that in the past would be deemed 'non-pertinent' or privileged. As with the Comair crash at LEX, these guys were shucking and jiving and not maintaining a sterile cockpit on taxi out so that initial part of the recording is definitely relevant to the mishap. But, the harvesting of conversation about commuting, fatigue and other stuff we talk about up front seems to me to be increasing in the NTSB's recent airline accident reports. If anything is found on the CVR in this ORD case, will it be admissible in a lawsuit proceeding? :confused: I don't claim to know. |
David at post 808
A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that. Why are some overbooking. Greed and a marginal industry. And cods running the companys. |
The CVR is an investigators tool to be used in flight safety investigations.
It is not a tool designed and implemented for judicial actions not related to safety of flight. All industry wide workers, especially including pilots are expected to speak out against the expansion of the use of a CVR for purely civil tort actions |
Why are some overbooking. |
Originally Posted by Max Angle
(Post 9739182)
The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.
When you buy a ticket, or if you don't want to pay the couple of quid extra it's when you check in a week ahead of travel, you choose your seat from amongst those that nobody else has chosen. Do airlines which routinely overbook allocate the same seat to two passengers then? The online system which is showing you which seats on your flight are still free is simply lying? |
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 9739160)
A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that. An empty seat is less fuel burn, I accept that. It's also, potentially, an opportunity cost rather than money in the bank. Airlines, historically, have tended not to penalise premium-fare passengers who don't show up for their booked flight by allowing them to move their reservation to a later one with no penalty. Sometimes the unused seat can be filled by a waitlisted passenger, sometimes it can't. So, in effect, that passenger's fare may end up having bought two seats, one of which goes to waste, or reduces the revenue potential of the other flight, depending on how you look at it. Of course if you're flying aft of the divider, the above probably won't apply and it's "use it or lose it". But to argue that noshows never impact on the bottom line simply isn't true. And the airlines clearly agree, otherwise they wouldn't overbook. |
See the part for Involuntary bumping or Boarding
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25 it is part of the Contract of Carriage Also here in DOT or Transportaion.gov. for USA https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights |
The (aviation) lawyer talking on the live broadcast, if you didn't see, did make a clear firm statement about how the captain was the one in charge. He joined this up by saying the CEO had then been smart in accepting responsibility. A warning?
|
The passenger had already boarded. UA cannot simply remove people for doing nothing wrong. The passenger was not compromising safety or security. The only party that compromised passengers safety was United.
|
Originally Posted by Max Angle
(Post 9739182)
Its not some, its every airline that is successful enough to have full aircraft, it is standard practice throughout the industry. The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.
For an Airline That Doesn?t Overbook, JetBlue Sure is Bumping a Lot of Travelers | Cranky Flier |
Airbubba - The CVR on most Embraer EJets runs for a perpetual two hours the moment the aircraft is powered up. The vital stuff would have been obliterated before it even departed. Also, don't get me wrong, but if my goose was cooking I'd be sorely tempted to press the erase button before I left the aircraft.
|
Not sure if this has been posted before, but it seems to be that United don't really care about their customers.
United Airlines staff 'forced frail grandma, 94, out of £2,800 Business seat into Economy for 16-hour flight' |
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 9739160)
A noshow is money in the bank and less fuel burn.
You know that. I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:
|
Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials
(Post 9739260)
It's not nearly that simple.
I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:
|
$Z is *potentially* in the millions. $Z is a very very small probability of a very very big number, probably quite a bit smaller than any of the others.
|
What has been determined from the last couple of weeks is that United really do not deserve to have any customers, there has been story after story emerging of similar incidents of bumping pax against their will with threats of arrest and violence.
Just some of the cases that have emerged in recent days: United Airlines staff 'forced frail grandma, 94, out of £2,800 Business seat into Economy for 16-hour flight' - Mirror Online https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ings-passenger After United fiasco, more complaints of reportedly rough treatment emerge | NJ.com 'Get off or pay for another seat.' United customers share their bad experiences - LA Times Are UA still a great airline? |
Originally Posted by CCGE29
(Post 9739285)
there has been story after story emerging of similar incidents of bumping pax against their will with threats of arrest and violence.
Of course this story is going to flush out other United-specific stories. We can't tell from these stories whether United is worse than, better than, or about the same as the other big carriers. |
Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials
(Post 9739260)
It's not nearly that simple.
I go to book a flight from point A to point B next Tuesday. The fare would be $500. The airline doesn't sell me a ticket because the flight is fully booked and they're no longer allowed to oversell. Meanwhile, someone else holding a ticket no-shows, and the aircraft dispatches with an empty seat. The airline is now:
They then sell that seat to a standby passenger and have 105% income As a loyal customer, would you not prefer to be told that the flight you wanted was full and you had that chance to make alternate arrangements or would you prefer to be sold a ticket which, when you get to the airport, you are told it will not be honoured . I am sorry but overbooking just does not make any sense at all to me. The stupidity of bumping 10% of your pax onto another flight does not save money, you still have to fly them AND you give them compensation. |
Originally Posted by Max Angle
(Post 9739182)
Its not some, its every airline that is successful enough to have full aircraft, it is standard practice throughout the industry. The only ones who don't overbook are those that don't have enough passengers to do it.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.