United, again.

[geodoc]

Probably the most lucid thing I've read about 3411:

"United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Fail"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html

[Joe Blow Schmo]

That requirement was/and is intended to ensure the safety of flight, it was never meant to be a catch all to resolve poor business practices or so the flight attendant can kick you off a flight because she is having a crappy day and you choose to complain about something.

The requirement is there to ensure that if you do choose to complain about something, you obey crew instructions at the time and take it up with the airline later. Whether the FA is having a crappy day or not doesn't change things. The crew gets the last word. Every time.

I really don't see this as either wrong or controversial. By the time uniformed government security personnel are brought in, does anyone really think that a tantrum by the passenger is going to, or should, resolve things the way the passenger wants?

Photofly: That's just piss poor customer service. A passenger complaining about service is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft. The rule is not meant to be an excuse for the cabin crew to force people to shut up because they don't like what they're saying. The crew gets the last word regarding safety. They do not get to pull that rule out to avoid be criticised for crappy service or a crappy attitude.

[rookiepilot]

That requirement was/and is intended to ensure the safety of flight, it was never meant to be a catch all to resolve poor business practices or so the flight attendant can kick you off a flight because she is having a crappy day and you choose to complain about something.

The requirement is there to ensure that if you do choose to complain about something, you obey crew instructions at the time and take it up with the airline later. Whether the FA is having a crappy day or not doesn't change things. The crew gets the last word. Every time.

I really don't see this as either wrong or controversial. By the time uniformed government security personnel are brought in, does anyone really think that a tantrum by the passenger is going to, or should, resolve things the way the passenger wants?

Photofly: That's just piss poor customer service. A passenger complaining about service is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft. The rule is not meant to be an excuse for the cabin crew to force people to shut up because they don't like what they're saying. The crew gets the last word regarding safety. They do not get to pull that rule out to avoid be criticised for crappy service or a crappy attitude.

I think this hits it on the head. A few -- mercifully only -- airline staff think it's fine to pull out that rule for any reason, to muzzle people, and call in the police. Note the AC gate agent who threatened those folks in Halifax with a no fly list, (this is on the ground) because they complained about not getting home. Gate agent threatens them and then calls the police. Police rolled their eyes. That's unacceptable airline behaviour.

I reiterate vast majority of airline staff are good to great in a stressful job. I have met a few over the years that really shouldn't be working with the public, so overtly hostile to every single passenger.

[photofly]

Photofly: That's just piss poor customer service. A passenger complaining about service is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft. The rule is not meant to be an excuse for the cabin crew to force people to shut up because they don't like what they're saying. The crew gets the last word regarding safety. They do not get to pull that rule out to avoid be criticised for crappy service or a crappy attitude.

Nobody would disagree that an employee abusing their authority is piss-poor service. Piss poor service is too weak a term by far to describe dragging a paying customer off a plane with a bloody face. And it's certainly something about which a fuss should be made.

Nevertheless, the crew have the authority to order you to shut up and/or get off the plane, and if they choose to use that authority in a way that you feel is unfair, you still have to follow instructions. Your recourse is to follow up with the airline later.

This is not only sensible policy from a management perspective. Do you really believe that criticizing a crew member to his or her face for their crappy attitude or service is going to improve that attitude, or get you better service? "Oh, yes sir, your complaint has helped me see I was being a douchebag and I didn't bring your coffee fast enough. I'll do better next time you press the call button, I guarantee it." You're smarter than that.

[rookiepilot]

Photofly: That's just piss poor customer service. A passenger complaining about service is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft. The rule is not meant to be an excuse for the cabin crew to force people to shut up because they don't like what they're saying. The crew gets the last word regarding safety. They do not get to pull that rule out to avoid be criticised for crappy service or a crappy attitude.

Nobody would disagree that an employee abusing their authority is piss-poor service. Piss poor service is too weak a term by far to describe dragging a paying customer off a plane with a bloody face. And it's certainly something about which a fuss should be made.

Nevertheless, the crew have the authority to order you to shut up and/or get off the plane, and if they choose to use that authority in a way that you feel is unfair, you still have to follow instructions. Your recourse is to follow up with the airline later.

Actually a strong case is being made by the lawyer types commenting that they didn't have the authority under the carriage and possibly committed an illegal act, with the known facts. Nevertheless I would listen and get off because I value my face.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/0 ... on-united/

[Canoehead]

Nevertheless, the crew have the authority to order you to shut up and/or get off the plane, and if they choose to use that authority in a way that you feel is unfair, you still have to follow instructions. Your recourse is to follow up with the airline later.

This was not a safety of flight issue in this case, nor did "the crew" have anything to do with it.

[photofly]

The company decided that the passenger couldn't fly, and the company and/or the PIC and/or the crew invited and allowed state government security on board their aircraft and asked them to enforce that decision. To that extent, "the crew" did have something to do with it. Remember, we're not talking about whether the guy should have been given a bloody nose, we're talking about who has the final say about who flies, the airline or the passenger(s). We all have a strong interest in making sure the only answer to that question is "the airline".

This was not a safety of flight issue in this case

Some cases are obvious, some are less obvious. Regardless, the airline has the final say about who flies on the airline's aircraft. If you don't like their decision you behave like an adult: you get off, book on another airline, and pursue a remedy in court for your damages caused by the airline's breach of contract. You don't have a hissy fit like a two-year old.

Does anyone here think what the passenger did was a sensible mature response, and that it got him his desired outcome? No? I didn't think so.

[Canoehead]

I don't disagree with your statement about "the airline" having the say over the pax. Nor do I disagree that the good doctor behaved like a 2-year old.
The point here is that there is a lot of misconception that this was a 'safety of flight' issue. It wasn't in this case. Also, calling the police to the airplane would not have been initiated by any of "the crew". UAL sales agents were in control of it.

Now, if the doctor had assaulted my cabin crew, or done damage to my airplane, lit up a smoke, uttered threats against crew or flight, or disobeyed 'crew' instructions, then yep... I get to call for the authorities. But there's no evidence to support that. Until the door is closed and or the above happens, the conflict is between the airline (UAL sales agents in this case), and the pax.

[Old fella]

Big payout now I dare say..... hope this guy gets a fine settlement.

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBzOd9g?m=en-ca

[photofly]

I think whatever he gets, it will be reduced by about 90% because he repeatedly refused to leave the aircraft long after it became very clear he would not be a passenger on the flight.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen anyone write: "He also said United and other airlines have "bullied" customers for a long time. Dr. Dao, I believe to his great credit, has come to understand that he is the guy, he's the guy to stand up for passengers going forward," Demetrio said."

I really don't need childish passive-agressive asshats like this guy to stand up for me, going forward, backwards or sideways, thanks.

[Jean-Pierre]

He is right though. I have seen passenger brought to tears over even a small indiscretion. Somebody did need to stand up for them self. I can't because I don't want to be banned for life. The effect now will be staff will have more patience and I hope some more respect since they don't want to publicly ruin their company reputation.

[rookiepilot]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/health/sc ... index.html

Passenger on united flight stung by scorpion:

Sometimes it's one of those weeks.

[AirFrame]

It wasn't fake news at all. At one point (my apologies for not being specific) United did in fact lose a billion dollars off its market capitalization. At the close of the day the were down a mere 255 million.

And still up well above the previous week's closes. It's fake news in that the headline implies the company lost all this value due to one PR gaff, when stock fluctuates daily, weekly, and monthly by amounts equal to or greater than this blip. Just like other blips, this one is meaningless once you look a little further. The stock price cratered at the end of March, too, and rebounded. Any idea why?

[AirFrame]

The thing I notice in all of this are the escalations that nobody would back down from once crossed.

The airline decided that 4 people were getting off the plane before it moved. First ask for volunteers. No volunteers? Then force people. No backing down.
A voluntold passenger says no, I don't want to go. Again, no backing down, just call security instead.
Security has one job. This person has to leave the plane. They have no alternative that they are allowed to back down to.

At each point, the number of options available to the person with the power to make decisions diminishes greatly. And the number of cell phone videos increases greatly. But if any of them had backed down, everyone on that flight would know how to deal with future situations like this: Stand your ground.

If the police had talked to the passenger, decided he wasn't a threat, and left him on the airplane for the airline to deal with, there's only two things that I see could have happened: First, one of the other passengers, who wasn't busy shouting "oh, my gaaawd! look what you gone done to him!" would have pulled an attendant aside and said they weren't comfortable flying with the disruptive doctor on board... Second, the airline might have tried to voluntell someone else to get off, and that person would have thought "hey, if the doctor didn't have to go, maybe I don't have to either" and said "no." At that point the airline has lost it's entire authority of the situation.

[Black_Tusk]

There are videos circulating now basically with him saying "You can drag me out, I'm not getting off this plane, I will make a lawsuit, I'd rather go to jail." I wonder if this goes to court, if that will come into play.

https://youtu.be/GgieOw2120c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s

[rookiepilot]

United pilots union comments:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united- ... -1.4071160

[pei]

Have to say I am shocked at the attitude of some posters here. Must be United sales agents? If an airline pilot thinks the airline pays his salary he needs to think again. It is the paying customer who pays his salary and he/she should have some respect for them.

This was not a safety issue or even an overbooking incident. Someone decided that four UAL employees who arrived at the last minute should have priority over passengers who had paid for their seats probably weeks/months in advance, boarded the aircraft and sat in those seats. Anyone here that thinks what happened after that was right should not be working in the airline - or any industry that involves working with other human beings.

Ever hear of "customer relations"? The company was simply too cheap to adequately compensate passengers for the inconvenience of having to spend an extra day in Chicago. Would you accept $800 to possibly miss a connecting flight, miss a day's work, pay for a hotel, meals, and transportation to and from the airport for $800?

This guy is a grandfather and he and his wife are both medical doctors as are his children. I believe he lost two teeth, had a broken nose and a concussion. This will be a multi-million dollar settlement and it serves UAL/Republic right.

The good part of this is that we may see some changes in overbooking policies.

eb

[47north]

This was not a safety issue or even an overbooking incident. Someone decided that four UAL employees who arrived at the last minute should have priority over passengers who had paid for their seats probably weeks/months in advance, boarded the aircraft and sat in those seats. Anyone here that thinks what happened after that was right should not be working in the airline - or any industry that involves working with other human

eb

The whole event was obviously poorly handled, but they weren't just four UAL employees out for a joy ride. It was a deadheading crew that needed to get to the destination to operate outbound. No crew at the other end means inconveniencing not just four passengers on the first flight, but another 76 passengers.

[Gino Under]

This entire mess and resulting public relations nightmare squarely lies at the feet of Republic airlines and could ultimately result in their going out of business. Yet, it is United airlines and its CEO who will shoulder the blame and the clean up. It might even cost him his job.

Under Canadian law, the pilot in command gets his authority from the criminal code of Canada and as such, has the power of arrest. He/she can also use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest when a criminal offence has been committed on board an aircraft under his/her command. There are restraining devices onboard most aircraft for just that purpose. However, an unlawful offence must have been committed.
What unlawful offence did this United passenger commit? None.
So, I'd ask, how did 'law enforcement' and under what authority did they board this aircraft? What criminal offence was committed? If no one saw an unlawful act, under what authority did they have to arrest and use force on this passenger?
This issue should have been of no interest to law enforcement as it was entirely a civil matter between United and its fare paying passenger.

The ramifications of incidents like this and their eventual impact on continued regional airline affiliations with the mainline, could take a very serious and unexpected turn.

Gino Under

[rookiepilot]

This entire mess and resulting public relations nightmare squarely lies at the feet of Republic airlines and could ultimately result in their going out of business. Yet, it is United airlines and its CEO who will shoulder the blame and the clean up. It might even cost him his job.

Under Canadian law, the pilot in command gets his authority from the criminal code of Canada and as such, has the power of arrest. He/she can also use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest when a criminal offence has been committed on board an aircraft under his/her command. There are restraining devices onboard most aircraft for just that purpose. However, an unlawful offence must have been committed.
What unlawful offence did this United passenger commit? None.
So, I'd ask, how did 'law enforcement' and under what authority did they board this aircraft? What criminal offence was committed? If no one saw an unlawful act, under what authority did they have to arrest and use force on this passenger?
This issue should have been of no interest to law enforcement as it was entirely a civil matter between United and its fare paying passenger.

The ramifications of incidents like this and their eventual impact on continued regional airline affiliations with the mainline, could take a very serious and unexpected turn.

Gino Under

It's a circular argument. According to the industry -- and believed by many here -- this I what I would argue as a lawyer for the airline if a case went to court. (Not what I believe)

Once a passenger crosses the threshold, the cabin crews word under the carriage is absolute law. Reasonableness is irrelevant. So the circular argument is as soon as the passenger did not obey the first request, he became non compliant, a potential danger to the aircraft, and law enforcement can be called in to use any means necessary. Ridiculous, yes, but that is the airline's position, is that absolute rule of law trumps reasonableness or individual rights.

I understand and submit to this from a safety point of view (and exercise it as a pilot with my pax) but when airlines use that authority beyond the goals intended for convenience, laws and regulations will be rewritten.

[photofly]

It's not a circular argument at all, and you've missed the most important point.

The proper remedy for transgressions of reasonableness and individual rights does not lie in on-the-spot disobedience to the unreasonable instruction. Even if an command is blatantly unreasonable, tramples your human rights and breaches your contract with the airline, you must obey at the time. The remedy is to seek redress through lawful means afterwards.

I understand and submit to this from a safety point of view (and exercise it as a pilot with my pax)

Sauce for the goose.


One airline exec was quoted by the BBC saying (similarly to what I wrote earlier) that if it had been his airline, and a passenger had been disobeying an instruction they would simply have cancelled the flight. Once all the passengers were off, they could have re-boarded everyone they wanted to. It's a logistics nightmare for sure, but it avoids anyone losing teeth and it preserves the airline's authority.

[stone69]

Looks like they've had another " incident " in HOU over the weekend....

[rookiepilot]

It's not a circular argument at all, and you've missed the most important point.

The proper remedy for transgressions of reasonableness and individual rights does not lie in on-the-spot disobedience to the unreasonable instruction. Even if an command is blatantly unreasonable, tramples your human rights and breaches your contract with the airline, you must obey at the time. The remedy is to seek redress through lawful means afterwards.

I understand and submit to this from a safety point of view (and exercise it as a pilot with my pax)

Sauce for the goose.


One airline exec was quoted by the BBC saying (similarly to what I wrote earlier) that if it had been his airline, and a passenger had been disobeying an instruction they would simply have cancelled the flight. Once all the passengers were off, they could have re-boarded everyone they wanted to. It's a logistics nightmare for sure, but it avoids anyone losing teeth and it preserves the airline's authority.

Think you're missing my point. Yes the proper passenger response is to get off -- under protest and recording events.
Regardless --

My point is when airlines blatantly and deliberately, though coercion or deception, apply a rule / contract designed for safety solely to serve their business interests or bail out their mistakes, then execute that correction in a manner way out of line to what was required, lawmakers / and the judiciary will eventually respond with harsh sanctions. The passenger's actions in this case are completely beside the point. He isn't on trial here.

If I was the judge hearing this case, I would set a very harsh example of United to send a stern message to the industry this behaviour will no longer be tolerated. And I would demand the CEO be present in the courtroom and lambast him personally, on the record. Then others will think twice.

What likely angers the public and lawmakers far more than the incident is the CEO's brutal, callous and cold attitude towards his own passengers. I find his apologies completely self-serving and insincere and I'm shocked he's still employed. His "resignation" may be in the works.

[CpnCrunch]

One airline exec was quoted by the BBC saying (similarly to what I wrote earlier) that if it had been his airline, and a passenger had been disobeying an instruction they would simply have cancelled the flight. Once all the passengers were off, they could have re-boarded everyone they wanted to. It's a logistics nightmare for sure, but it avoids anyone losing teeth and it preserves the airline's authority.

I think most airlines would never get into the situation of having to drag off a passenger because of the airline's own unreasonable and arbitrary rules. And then they use glorified mall cops who apparently have no idea of the law, or of how to safely remove someone from a plane without injuring them. (Not really United's fault the airport uses fake cops, I know, but they get all the bad publicity from it).

[rookiepilot]

And then they use glorified mall cops who apparently have no idea of the law, or of how to safely remove someone from a plane without injuring them. (Not really United's fault the airport uses fake cops, I know, but they get all the bad publicity from it).

I dunno about that. This was a united supervisor who called in the mall cops. One would reasonably expect a supervisor would know exactly who they were calling in -- and the potential outcome.