Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

dtw2hyd · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:11 pm

pygmalion wrote:
A gate agent is not Air Crew. A gate agents "order" is not backed up by federal law.

Federal law requires passengers follow lawful crew instructions. Industry conveniently dropped the word lawful.

102IAHexpress · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:22 pm

That news conference today was extremely damaging to United in the court of Public Opinion. This is an absolute disaster. I don't see how United's brand can recover. The board of United Continental needs to cut its losses on the United brand, and re-brand as Continental Airlines and reboot. Heck, even Jesse Jackson was out protesting today. I'm not that old, only 36, but I don't ever remember Jesse Jackson protesting a controversy when the officers were black. I mean how bad must this be for Jesse Jackson to protest in a matter where black officers are involved? And now we know the flight was not even overbooked. My God.

Braniff1 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:35 pm

exunited wrote:
The flight was by Republic Airlines, not United mainline but then nobody would take the click bait if the headlines said Republic now would they?

Obviously, you're a United ex, so I have a question. Where was the captain of the plane; is the captain not in charge of the ship? Also, it may be easy to pin this on Republic, but United is getting fund$ from this flight? Despite of anything, this event is not the worst thing United does to passengers. A veteran UNITED attendant has told me many horror stories about how attendants take their frustrations out on passengers, by doing horrible things to their food and drinks. Oddly, it seems 1st class passengers are abused the worst.

AirCalSNA · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:39 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
However the question is, if it is a good idea to make crew orders open to debate, Where will this end?

This gets cured by spelling out what the crew and gate agents can and cannot do in plain English in the Contract of Carriage.

"We need to remove you."

"I don't want to leave."

"Right here, in Paragraph 4, it explains in detail why we can."

That may be a bit simplistic, but it's direct and to the point. In Dr. Dao's case, the CoC most definitely DID NOT say that he couldn't be removed. If there's an overweight issue, then as long as that's in the CoC, then they could presumably do it.

Here's the thing: airlines employ small armies of lawyers. It doesn't take much effort to write up a reasonable, understandable ten point CoC, or thereabouts, that the average person could understand, both passenger and gate agent alike. And, as I said in an earlier post, a smile and a thank you will generally get you what you want. Toss in sufficient compensation and the airlines will get volunteers. If they don't, then they aren't trying hard enough and that's on them.

Your question about following crew orders is a good one. But there's a difference between orders that involve the safety of passengers and crew and those intended only to save the airline some money (i.e., contract disputes). Police should not be involved in the latter. The airlines need to deal with the latter as business people and if police need to be present at all they should stand down in the background until a true crime has been committed.

TransGlobalGold · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:49 pm

I've scanned the last couple of pages, I didn't see this mention, The passenger's lawyer is stating he had a concussion and broken nose. True or not, it just muddied this incident:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 100409492/

WNbob · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:56 pm

In retrospect, this was just unneeded drama, as if Airlines don't already have a bad image in general. Frontline airline workers go "by the book," that's how they have been managed, specially if they are union, which UA's are. In situation like this, a supervisor needs to be at the gate, who tend to have more leeway to make the call, alas they are not always there when you need one, This could had been resolved easily by upting the compensation but alas, the frontline agent has no authority to do so, and he's getting pressured to close the flight ASAP and no management available to deal with the matter. Believe it or not, any delays not only annoys the passenger but also can cause the airline to lose$$.

As far as the cops go, this was bad, but have you noticed all these cops incidences lately? Am no law enforcement but seems like to me, when a cop orders you to do something, other than harming yourself, you MUST comply otherwise the cop can get physical and they, at the end will not be penalized for it. The not so clear rule seems to me, comply now and file a complaint later. Be indignant all you want but that's seems to be the reality. After this incident though, am betting the airport cops are thinking twice before interceding for the airlines on matter of pulling a passenger due to overbooking. Intox, unfit to fly, can cause disturbance during flight, they will still pull you, they are empowered to do so and can be panalized if an obvious intox passenger gets on a flight.

weekendppl · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:00 pm

Out of this incident, United just might also want to ask themselves why they can't get people to volunteer and go work those issues. I'm betting #1 reason is lack of interest in getting useless vouchers. At the least, every "voucher" should have no expiration date and should have a redemption CASH value. And #2 is fear that the "re-accommodation" will be a circus due to generally very high load factors. I'm not sure how you fix that, and having now made everybody painfully aware that they really don't care if they get you where you want to go--even if they've let you take a seat--I'm not sure how they fix this one.

Those are my two reasons. I've had vouchers expire unused. Using them is a pain in the ass. (Intentionally so--they really don't want you to use them. It's part of the calculus. Just like "gift cards".) And just hanging out at airports, watching the clusterf* that is air travel these days, waiting to be "re-accommodated" is just not something that is any fun, ever. I've also had same day re-accommodation get all screwed up with dropped M+ numbers, confused checked bags, trading aisle seats together near the front of the bus for separated middles at the back of the bus and on and on. I'm to the point where unless you are offering real money, I'm not volunteering. Not that that's any guarantee--even after they've seated you, apparently.

Flighty · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:01 pm

WNbob wrote:
In retrospect, this was just unneeded drama, as if Airlines don't already have a bad image in general. Frontline airline workers go "by the book," that's how they have been managed, specially if they are union, which UA's are. In situation like this, a supervisor needs to be at the gate, who tend to have more leeway to make the call, alas they are not always there when you need one, This could had been resolved easily by upting the compensation but alas, the frontline agent has no authority to do so, and he's getting pressured to close the flight ASAP and no management available to deal with the matter. Believe it or not, any delays not only annoys the passenger but also can cause the airline to lose$$.

As far as the cops go, this was bad, but have you noticed all these cops incidences lately? Am no law enforcement but seems like to me, when a cop orders you to do something, other than harming yourself, you MUST comply otherwise the cop can get physical and they, at the end will not be penalized for it. The not so clear rule seems to me, comply now and file a complaint later. Be indignant all you want but that's seems to be the reality. After this incident though, am betting the airport cops are thinking twice before interceding for the airlines on matter of pulling a passenger due to overbooking. Intox, unfit to fly, can cause disturbance during flight, they will still pull you, they are empowered to do so and can be panalized if an obvious intox passenger gets on a flight.

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.

As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.

I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

Aptivaboy · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:04 pm

Your question about following crew orders is a good one. But there's a difference between orders that involve the safety of passengers and crew and those intended only to save the airline some money (i.e., contract disputes). Police should not be involved in the latter. The airlines need to deal with the latter as business people and if police need to be present at all they should stand down in the background until a true crime has been committed.

I agree and nowhere in my post did I say that the cops should be used. The issue for me was whether UAL possessed the authority to order Dr. Dao off of the plane. They didn't, and even Oscar has basically admitted that. No, had the CoC been clearer all around, then perhaps they could have. They still shouldn't have used law enforcement to do what they did, in my opinion, but at least they'd have had a legal leg to stand on. Since the CoC wasn't clear on this point and Oscar has said as much, UAL will lose, big time.

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:14 pm

M564038 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
However the question is, if it is a good idea to make crew orders open to debate, Where will this end? Sometimes the weather changes and you need to remove passengers after boarding, as you need extra fuel for a possible diversion, who would believe you and what do you do if the passengers refuse to leave? Cancel the whole flight? Overbooking and gaining other economic advantages from removing passengers should be very costly to the airline, which imho compensation should be much higher and it should be up to the airline to proof it was a purely safety related measure. However this should always be discussed after the flight and not onboard the airplane, there the order of the crew should be followed without questioning.

It ends right there.
You have a right to resist authority if the one who is acting on behalf of authority is in the wrong. That is a basic human right.
Of course you better be sure you are reasonably right, and if you put yourself against authority with lethal weapons on a power trip you risk being dead for trying. But you have a right to do it. It's the whole basis of having societies based on courts and law and not being dictatorial, martial law, police states.
This goes for anyone in uniform, don't go on a powertrip against someone that is right.

Someone of a different opinion than you, or simply protecting their right or investment in a ticket, is not a safety or security threat for wanting to exercise that right. Being in disagreement is not a safety issue by it self.

A certain percentage of people seem to have a real difficulty getting their heads around this.
A LEO's authority is based on LAW ENFORCEMENT not on wearing a uniform.
The second you aren't enforcing the law, but breaking it, demanding unreasonable actions, or in the wrong they no longer possess that authority.

As a matter of fact, in this country, which aren't the US, but I'm sure you have to have some of the same mechanisms, I can arrest a police officer or any other person just as much as a police officer can arrest me if I personaly witness wrongdoing.
That action, either way, is then subject to a legal process from a different authority than the arresting party before there can be a release, or someone can be kept for a prolonged time. Failure to do that would be a crime.

What the police can do, which I can't, is act on behalf of courts, the IRS, the state etc. That is exlusively for the police, and they also have extensive training that gives them a wider range of power and a bit more slack such as demanding ID(license, registration etc.)

They do not have the authority "to be right" whatever they say. It's not a crime to laugh in the face of a police officer who demands unreasonable actions. Unless they are enforcing a legal matter according to the law, they are just like anyone else.
Uniform or no uniform.

I guess americans never had to live in a dictatorship and fight for their right to civil resistance against illegal authority. The closest you seem to have is the Rosa Parks story, and it is 100% applicable in this case.

It is not some human rights problem, it is a simple fight over a contract by 2 private parties. Law enforcement only becomes involved when third parties are affected by this fight. It is like a car crash with 2 cars and they are fighting who is to blame, this does not mean that they can keep blocking the road when a police officers orders them to move the cars out of the way.

SamYeager2016 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:54 pm

seahawk wrote:
However the question is, if it is a good idea to make crew orders open to debate, Where will this end? Sometimes the weather changes and you need to remove passengers after boarding, as you need extra fuel for a possible diversion, who would believe you and what do you do if the passengers refuse to leave? Cancel the whole flight?

You make some good points. Sadly it seems clear that over the years the airline industry has brought this upon itself by effectively abusing their powers, in terms of asserting safety and security risks, as well as creatively re-interpreting the CoCs to their advantage. One way in which this might be resolved is making it much easier for both customers and airline staff to understand each other rights, powers and responsibilities. Regrettably it will be quite a while before this takes place even if someone started work on it now. Pandora's box has opened, at least in the USA, and I believe airlines and their staff are just going to have to adapt whether or not they like it.

Flighty · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:14 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Flighty wrote:
In general, resisting arrest is illegal EVEN IF THE ARREST IS WRONGFUL. Being dragged / flailing probably counts as resisting. You then sue the police later. You do not resist cops. You have to be crazy to do that, which is why I immediately assumed Dao is mentally incompetent.

I think this really must be a USA thing (sorry if I'm wrongfully assuming that's where you are). I think some amount of resistance is acceptable when you truly think the police are out of line. To have to blindly go along with *any* request means you're in a police state.

There was a case in Bristol a couple of months ago when a policewoman tasered a guy for "resisting arrest"... and it was the police that caught the flak for it. The guy was stopped and asked for his ID while entering his home and he said they had no right to demand that ... argument ensues ... police (unlawfully) try to follow him in to his house ... he gets knocked down ... tasering. (In the face, believe it or not!)

Again this was in the news since someone filmed it - and it featured a couple of salient points to spice up the story a bit: 1) he "looked like a criminal", 2) he turned out to be a local race-relations representative for the city.

As I said - the police (quite rightly) caught the flak for it, not him.

Not only the USA... here is a discussion from Australian law. Regarding private security, not even police.

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/Informati ... ncers.aspx

"Security guards or bouncers are allowed to ask you to leave private premises or functions on behalf of the owner. An employee on licensed premises can refuse entry or remove you from premises for a wide number of reasons.

If you don’t leave when asked to do so, you may be trespassing and the security guard or crowd controller can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises. If more force is used than is reasonable then it may be an unlawful assault."

"You may be trespassing" is apparently not true here, because even though the boarding process had not completed, this man's bottom had touched the chair. This is a grey area yet to be resolved.

If the order to leave stands, then using force is just fine to remove him. As a courtesy, UA could promise not to do so.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:35 pm

CanadaFair wrote:
Has anyone concluded why the Dr. was let go off and re entered the aircraft?

Did the cops realise their mistake and let him go? did a UA employee finally realise the situation was unwarranted and requested the cops to let him go?

If you mean after he was dragged off the aircraft, I'm guessing he bolted back onto the plane.
If you mean after the initial alleged agreement to get off, I think he simply returned to the aircraft and took his seat (if he had indeed exited his seat during that part of the process).

NorthTerminal wrote:
dc9northwest wrote:
NorthTerminal wrote:

Do they really?

I actually don't think customer service in the USA is that great... In some cases you get smiley folks, but that don't make good CS... And you have to pay for it, too (tipping, ugh!).

But at least you don't have your steak take from your plate and given to a more important person and then dragged out by police.

Maybe things have changed, it's been almost two decades since I last visited, but back then I found that retail and hospitality staff were very courteous and would bend over backward to make yours a pleasant experience.

I hear how bad customer service is all the time. In reality, I think people have very high expectations.

I went to Starbucks and McDonalds this morning. Inside Starbucks the staff were all friendly, cheery, and outgoing. In the McDonalds drive thru the person who took my order clearly had English as her second language but did the best she could. At the window I found a smile from me brought a nice smile from her, and she was never rude in any way. When I picked up my breakfast sandwich, the person who handed me my order was extremely friendly and outgoing. This is not a unique experience, yet all you ever hear are people trashing McDonalds employees, etc. Honestly, these jobs aren't always easy and customers can be indifferent, rude, and even jerks at times. There are certainly some bad apples, and some people will never get customer service, but I think for the most part people are doing good to very good at trying to take care of the customers.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:38 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Given Oscarito´s statements today:

"We have apologized and given a 100% refund to EVERY SINGLE passenger on the flight"

Had my family been on that flight we would have been traumatized, not that we would even think of suing, but sick, exhausted, and offended at what happened. I suspect most of the passengers felt as we would have. While I don't boycott generally, I don't like feeling extremely nauseous either, and would avoid United in the future on that basis.

Frankly, for all the talk of "safety", I can't see how a crew could perform "safely" after seeing that guy knocked around and dragged off the plane like that. At some point, you say "This is bad ju-ju" and just call it a day.

BobPatterson · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:41 pm

Flighty wrote:

Not only the USA... here is a discussion from Australian law. Regarding private security, not even police.

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/Informati ... ncers.aspx

"Security guards or bouncers are allowed to ask you to leave private premises or functions on behalf of the owner. An employee on licensed premises can refuse entry or remove you from premises for a wide number of reasons.

If you don’t leave when asked to do so, you may be trespassing and the security guard or crowd controller can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises. If more force is used than is reasonable then it may be an unlawful assault."

"You may be trespassing" is apparently not true here, because even though the boarding process had not completed, this man's bottom had touched the chair. This is a grey area yet to be resolved.

If the order to leave stands, then using force is just fine to remove him. As a courtesy, UA could promise not to do so.

You really do appear to be grasping at straws as if you simply hate, hate, hate seeing justice done. It looks like you can't stand the idea that there are limits to what airlines may do to passengers/customers.

Australian rules for "bouncers" has nothing to do with USA airlines (I see no mention of Australian airlines in the link you posted).

Claiming that the boarding process was not completed is another legalistic attempt to avoid the obvious.

All passengers were boarded and in their seats ready to go. Only problem was that at the last minute the airline wanted to evict four people solely so that airline personnel could have their seats.

This blatant attempt to evict blameless passengers was the cause of this mess for United Airlines.

They had several other options for positioning their crew for a next-day flight. They chose not to avail themselves of any other option.

Please stop making excuses for them.

Unflug · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:46 pm

Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:04 pm

Unflug wrote:
Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

In the end it just a regulations problem, as the compensation for such events is so low and claiming it is not done by everybody. Imho airlines must have the right to remove people from the plane, but unless they can positively proof that it was a problem directly related to the safety of this flight, the compensation should be higher and airlines should be forced to pay out in cash right after refusing boarding, I am quite sure that they would have had volunteers, if they had to offer 1500-2000$ in cash rather than 800$ in vouchers.

2175301 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:11 pm

My view is that in the end this was a civil dispute about contract law. In such cases you are expected to proceed as best you can under the contract given the current situation and then you can seek legal redress later.

As the passenger was already on-board the aircraft: United Airlines should have proceeded with the flight with him on-board and then filed a legal action and gone to court to resolve the dispute, and to seek damages from the passenger for any resulting loss he created due to his refusal to vacate his ticked and boarded seat.. In no civilized country is it legal in any way for civil disputes to be resolved by resorting to force, or the threat of force. United is the ones who resorted to force, and threatens to resort to force as reported in another thread, to resolve a civil contractual disputes.

I will also point out that the fact that it may cost United more money - or that they may even loose money - by completing their contract with a passenger is not an argument that can be made in a US court involving contract law. So, all those who wish to argue the economic cost and advantages for United of forcibly removing him are standing on extremely well codified and ruled ZERO legal grounds. It just does not apply. Now a company or individual can file bankruptcy to void contracts and escape their cost.

Have a great day,

Armodeen · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:15 pm

WNbob wrote:
As far as the cops go, this was bad, but have you noticed all these cops incidences lately? Am no law enforcement but seems like to me, when a cop orders you to do something, other than harming yourself, you MUST comply otherwise the cop can get physical and they, at the end will not be penalized for it. The not so clear rule seems to me, comply now and file a complaint later. Be indignant all you want but that's seems to be the reality. After this incident though, am betting the airport cops are thinking twice before interceding for the airlines on matter of pulling a passenger due to overbooking. Intox, unfit to fly, can cause disturbance during flight, they will still pull you, they are empowered to do so and can be panalized if an obvious intox passenger gets on a flight.

The force used by police must be proportional and reasonable. Do you think that was the case here, with a guy who was not actively resisting?

When they overstep the lines they absolutely can face sanction, I don't know why people think cops can do whatever they want.

BostonGuy · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:20 pm

seahawk wrote:
Unflug wrote:
Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

Imho airlines must have the right to remove people from the plane, but unless they can positively proof that it was a problem directly related to the safety of this flight, the compensation should be higher and airlines should be forced to pay out in cash right after refusing boarding,

What you describe is an airline inconvenienced by paying customers who interfere with the transport of employees.

Even the CEO of United has discovered that to be an untenable position to take.

"He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat on our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way,” Mr. Munoz said.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:27 pm

seahawk wrote:
Unflug wrote:
Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

In the end it just a regulations problem, as the compensation for such events is so low and claiming it is not done by everybody. Imho airlines must have the right to remove people from the plane, but unless they can positively proof that it was a problem directly related to the safety of this flight, the compensation should be higher and airlines should be forced to pay out in cash right after refusing boarding, I am quite sure that they would have had volunteers, if they had to offer 1500-2000$ in cash rather than 800$ in vouchers.

Someone volunteered to go for $1600, so it didn't even take $2000 in cash.

BostonGuy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Unflug wrote:
Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

Imho airlines must have the right to remove people from the plane, but unless they can positively proof that it was a problem directly related to the safety of this flight, the compensation should be higher and airlines should be forced to pay out in cash right after refusing boarding,

What you describe is an airline inconvenienced by paying customers who interfere with the transport of employees.

Even the CEO of United has discovered that to be an untenable position to take.

"He was a paying passenger sitting in a seat on our aircraft, and no one should be treated that way,” Mr. Munoz said.

Everything Munoz is saying now is to eliminate the problem. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I wouldn't use his statements on Wednesday as a reflection of what he or the airline believed on Monday.

kalvado · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:32 pm

Flighty wrote:
WNbob wrote:
In retrospect, this was just unneeded drama, as if Airlines don't already have a bad image in general. Frontline airline workers go "by the book," that's how they have been managed, specially if they are union, which UA's are. In situation like this, a supervisor needs to be at the gate, who tend to have more leeway to make the call, alas they are not always there when you need one, This could had been resolved easily by upting the compensation but alas, the frontline agent has no authority to do so, and he's getting pressured to close the flight ASAP and no management available to deal with the matter. Believe it or not, any delays not only annoys the passenger but also can cause the airline to lose$$.

As far as the cops go, this was bad, but have you noticed all these cops incidences lately? Am no law enforcement but seems like to me, when a cop orders you to do something, other than harming yourself, you MUST comply otherwise the cop can get physical and they, at the end will not be penalized for it. The not so clear rule seems to me, comply now and file a complaint later. Be indignant all you want but that's seems to be the reality. After this incident though, am betting the airport cops are thinking twice before interceding for the airlines on matter of pulling a passenger due to overbooking. Intox, unfit to fly, can cause disturbance during flight, they will still pull you, they are empowered to do so and can be panalized if an obvious intox passenger gets on a flight.

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.

As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.

I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

What you're saying is "UA created a situation with no simple way out". I agree.
Everyone been there to a some extent. In that case you have to pay the price, one way or the other.
UA tried to do make it cheap... Turns out that some airlines are not rich enough for cheap solutions...

richardw · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:34 pm

Experience worse than war http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39586391

TheOldDude · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:39 pm

Perhaps this message should start a new thread; for the time being I'll post it here.

The underlying problem giving rise to this event was a mismatch of expectations between United and the passenger. The passenger was seated in a seat that he had received and paid for. To him, perhaps, "reserved" means what the dictionary says it means (1). To the airline, however, "reserved" meant they could kick the passenger out of the seat for a myriad of reasons. Thus the problem.

That problem can be overcome by reintroducing "reserved" and "stand-by" tickets. A "reserved" ticket means what Webster says it means -- and if the aircraft leaved the gate, the passenger gets the seat. A "stand-by" ticket means the passenger can get bumped if someone higher in priority shows up (such as DH flight crew). Because an airline can forecast the number of higher priority passengers that might appear, they can establish the number of stand-by seats on each flight.

From they passengers point of view, they make a choice between paying more for a higher level of confidence that they will be on the flight, or pay less to take the chance that they will have to fly later. Their expectations are set by the ticket type they buy. From the airlines perspective, they always are able to accommodate higher priority passengers.This airline may also save money; the airline will no longer have to buy back seats for higher priority passengers.

This proposal is not without problems, but it is much better than the way seats are sold today, where the CoC means every seat is essentially a stand-by seat.

(1) kept specially for a particular person

Bald1983 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:02 pm

SamYeager2016 wrote:
Excluding the garbage reasoning that "if you're told to leave and you don't you're now a trespasser and a safety risk" that some um.. misguided posters are still trying to push just how many non safety or security risk booked, paid, boarded and seated people actually need to be removed in a normal year?

Your question is gibberish. It is real simple: The contract of carriage gives the airline the right to remove passengers. If they are wrong, legal redress may be had. At that point the not so good doctor was a trespasser. Additionally, anytime a passenger is non-compliant with the flight or cabin crew, they are a safety risk and need to be removed. I believe the not so good doctor will get something maybe a lot. It will be, however, a calculation of the PR of the company, not because the man's legal rights were violated.

SomebodyInTLS · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:14 pm

Flighty wrote:
Not only the USA... here is a discussion from Australian law. Regarding private security, not even police.

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/Informati ... ncers.aspx

"Security guards or bouncers are allowed to ask you to leave private premises or functions on behalf of the owner. An employee on licensed premises can refuse entry or remove you from premises for a wide number of reasons.

I'm sorry, but (again) this is NOT the same situation at all!

United have a contract with a PAYING CUSTOMER to PROVIDE A SERVICE.

*THEY* break their contract with him, not the other way round, so they have absolutely no claim of trespass!

A customer asked to leave a nightclub was only ever there as a guest and at the discretion of the owner.

Oh and about that "boarding completed" thing - as I described earlier that also has zero relevance to an individual's boarded status. That happens when you get your boarding pass scanned.

Flighty · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:16 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
You really do appear to be grasping at straws as if you simply hate, hate, hate seeing justice done. It looks like you can't stand the idea that there are limits to what airlines may do to passengers/customers.

Australian rules for "bouncers" has nothing to do with USA airlines (I see no mention of Australian airlines in the link you posted).

Claiming that the boarding process was not completed is another legalistic attempt to avoid the obvious.

All passengers were boarded and in their seats ready to go. Only problem was that at the last minute the airline wanted to evict four people solely so that airline personnel could have their seats.

This blatant attempt to evict blameless passengers was the cause of this mess for United Airlines.

They had several other options for positioning their crew for a next-day flight. They chose not to avail themselves of any other option.

Please stop making excuses for them.

You are right Australian law has nothing to do with this....

It is great that Dao has won new rights that I wasn't sure we had. Dao directly took on UAL's CEO's power (by proxy, all airline CEOs, who silently agreed with Munoz, I'll bet). And Dao won, massively. I don't hate it.

What I don't like is rank hypocrisy regarding what we expect police to do. Maintain order, don't maintain order. But if we actually found a new way to board airplanes, that is fine, I am cool with it.

Flighty · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:34 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

United have a contract with a PAYING CUSTOMER to PROVIDE A SERVICE.

*THEY* break their contract with him, not the other way round, so they have absolutely no claim of trespass!

.

Yes, he has a ticket. To be served by United's operation, which is a fluid operation, as practical. I think we've come to a good consensus now that if a flight is happening, booked customers have a warrant or a deed to A seat. That right didn't really exist before, the ticket warrant was more abstract. It was "the United operation will get you there somehow." That was it. And you don't get to pick how.

But, okay, he had the right to remain onboard. In retrospect. And going forward.

wingman · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:41 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
I feel really bad for United here, their branding is splashed all over an - admittedly unfortunate - incident that they had nothing to do with. The security personnel really should have called Police if they felt that level of force was required, but at least the clown won't think of arguing with airline staff or security again. Not saying he deserved been knocked unconscious, but he definitely deserved some form of punishment.

So anything short of unconsciousness? Maybe bamboo slaps on the soles of the feet or repeated pummeling of the belly area? I guess an accomplished wife beater would be a good choice in your world, someone who knows how to inflict severe physical harm but you know..keep it out of sight to make sure your property stays awake enough to make dinner.

I can't help but question whether we are all truly Homo sapiens or there's some offshoot as yet undiscovered by science that trends genetically towards psychopathy.

Anyway, I'm upping my guess to $5M for the doc after his lawyer claims broken nose, cracked teeth and a concussion. And then the brilliant comment about the Doc not suffering this kind of mental anguish since he escaped the Vietnam War. Good lord, that sentence was worth $1M right there.

One idea for the rest of us, we star selling Dr. Dao punching bags so defenders of United can get some hard core workouts in fantasizing about beating the living crap out of paying customers. We're probably too late already.

mjoelnir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:47 pm

Flighty wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Flighty wrote:
In general, resisting arrest is illegal EVEN IF THE ARREST IS WRONGFUL. Being dragged / flailing probably counts as resisting. You then sue the police later. You do not resist cops. You have to be crazy to do that, which is why I immediately assumed Dao is mentally incompetent.

I think this really must be a USA thing (sorry if I'm wrongfully assuming that's where you are). I think some amount of resistance is acceptable when you truly think the police are out of line. To have to blindly go along with *any* request means you're in a police state.

There was a case in Bristol a couple of months ago when a policewoman tasered a guy for "resisting arrest"... and it was the police that caught the flak for it. The guy was stopped and asked for his ID while entering his home and he said they had no right to demand that ... argument ensues ... police (unlawfully) try to follow him in to his house ... he gets knocked down ... tasering. (In the face, believe it or not!)

Again this was in the news since someone filmed it - and it featured a couple of salient points to spice up the story a bit: 1) he "looked like a criminal", 2) he turned out to be a local race-relations representative for the city.

As I said - the police (quite rightly) caught the flak for it, not him.

Not only the USA... here is a discussion from Australian law. Regarding private security, not even police.

http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/Informati ... ncers.aspx

"Security guards or bouncers are allowed to ask you to leave private premises or functions on behalf of the owner. An employee on licensed premises can refuse entry or remove you from premises for a wide number of reasons.

If you don’t leave when asked to do so, you may be trespassing and the security guard or crowd controller can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises. If more force is used than is reasonable then it may be an unlawful assault."

"You may be trespassing" is apparently not true here, because even though the boarding process had not completed, this man's bottom had touched the chair. This is a grey area yet to be resolved.

If the order to leave stands, then using force is just fine to remove him. As a courtesy, UA could promise not to do so.

And if you could show me how that would apply to a person having rented and paid for some space for a certain time in that mal or whatever property we talk about.

I think that if one of those security guards, would go and for no acceptable reason throw out the people who just bought tickets to see the next movie in the theatre placed in the mal, both the owner of the mal and the security guard would land in hot shit when the persons thrown out would contact the police.

The main flaw in your thinking is, that you can not just for no good reason declare somebody as trespassing when he has a contract and valid reason to be there.

Do you think that a leasing company, the owner of an airplane, could just come and throw the crew of the airline using the plane off the airplane without a valid reason and without a court order?
When you have rented your property out, your ownership rights are not absolut, but bound by contracts and laws.

GlenP · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:48 pm

Most people would agree that it is not the role of the police to act as the private enforcers for businesses seeking to renege on a contract.

There was no breach of the peace, the passenger wasn't being disruptive and was not a threat to flight safety. No criminal acts were committed.

Regardless of how inconvenient the situation was for UA, there were no legitimate grounds for the police to intervene.

BTW. Having worked on the check-in and boarding of flights, at MAN, in the past, we were instructed that, once you had run the boarding card through the scanning machine and they were on the jet bridge, the passenger was boarded.

NorthTerminal · Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:13 pm

Flighty wrote:
What I don't like is rank hypocrisy regarding what we expect police to do. Maintain order, don't maintain order. But if we actually found a new way to board airplanes, that is fine, I am cool with it.

There is a not insignificant difference between maintaining order and forecefully enforcing contract dispute without a court order. The Police are not thugs for hire, they are there to enforce penal law, defend the public and execute orders of court.

I understood your previous position about disobeying an order from an officer of the law being a risky thing to do, as they may decide to make you follow that order whatever the cost, as in this case. However, suggesting that it is hypocritical to have exepctations that officers behave in a reasonable and professional manner when they get a bit physical or trigger happy unduly suggests a slightly warped perspective.

As others have said, a state where you have to comply with any and all commands issued by an officer of the law is tantamount to a police state.

NorthTerminal · Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:15 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
I feel really bad for United here, their branding is splashed all over an - admittedly unfortunate - incident that they had nothing to do with. The security personnel really should have called Police if they felt that level of force was required, but at least the clown won't think of arguing with airline staff or security again. Not saying he deserved been knocked unconscious, but he definitely deserved some form of punishment.

I have experienced RyanAir customer service and if we had Police that were willing to enforce RyanAir policies in the UK, this incident may well have been filmed over here!

DDR · Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:24 pm

Sorry if this has already been posted, CNN is reporting that UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.00

scbriml · Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:52 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
The contract of carriage gives the airline the right to remove passengers. If they are wrong, legal redress may be had. At that point the not so good doctor was a trespasser. Additionally, anytime a passenger is non-compliant with the flight or cabin crew, they are a safety risk and need to be removed.

Maybe your bias is showing, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to use the epithet "not so good doctor". However, United's CEO says the doctor did nothing wrong, so where does that leave your opinion?

Calling him a safety risk is complete and unadulterated BS. :yes:

DDR wrote:
UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.

$500? UA still haven't learned anything apparently.

32andBelow · Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:52 pm

scbriml wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
The contract of carriage gives the airline the right to remove passengers. If they are wrong, legal redress may be had. At that point the not so good doctor was a trespasser. Additionally, anytime a passenger is non-compliant with the flight or cabin crew, they are a safety risk and need to be removed.

Maybe your bias is showing, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to use the epithet "not so good doctor". However, United's CEO says the doctor did nothing wrong, so where does that leave your opinion?

Calling him a safety risk is complete and unadulterated BS.

DDR wrote:
UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.

$500? UA still haven't learned anything apparently.

500 bucks for what! Emotional distress?

dlphoenix · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:01 pm

DDR wrote:
Sorry if this has already been posted, CNN is reporting that UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.00

If this in the "refund" to the passengers on the flight then I think Oscar Munoz just lost his job

transswede · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
Unflug wrote:
Rather shocking read, this thread. As long as there are people working in the airline industry with an attitude as some show here in their posts, similar things will happen again. This thread gives the impression that we are not really talking about a United problem...

In the end it just a regulations problem, as the compensation for such events is so low and claiming it is not done by everybody. Imho airlines must have the right to remove people from the plane, but unless they can positively proof that it was a problem directly related to the safety of this flight, the compensation should be higher and airlines should be forced to pay out in cash right after refusing boarding, I am quite sure that they would have had volunteers, if they had to offer 1500-2000$ in cash rather than 800$ in vouchers.

No, it is not just a regulation problem. We have a clear systemic problem of airline employees treating passengers as annoyances rather than customers.This (and all the airline people defending UA's actions) is just the latest example of it.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:08 pm

dlphoenix wrote:
DDR wrote:
Sorry if this has already been posted, CNN is reporting that UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.00

If this in the "refund" to the passengers on the flight then I think Oscar Munoz just lost his job

It was already reported that everyone received a full refund. I'm assuming that this is on top of that and basically amounts to "You probably wouldn't sue us, but in the off chance that you would, here's $500 to just forget the whole thing." Probably pretty standard, and not much to lose by doing it. It isn't like they haven't already made these people whole through the previous refund. Plus, this is VOLUNTARY. Well, so far.....

dlphoenix · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:11 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:
DDR wrote:
Sorry if this has already been posted, CNN is reporting that UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.00

If this in the "refund" to the passengers on the flight then I think Oscar Munoz just lost his job

It was already reported that everyone received a full refund. I'm assuming that this is on top of that and basically amounts to "You probably wouldn't sue us, but in the off chance that you would, here's $500 to just forget the whole thing." Probably pretty standard, and not much to lose by doing it. It isn't like they haven't already made these people whole through the previous refund. Plus, this is VOLUNTARY. Well, so far.....

Thanks for the clarification
I guess they can see the lawyers circling...

PlanesNTrains · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:13 pm

dlphoenix wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:

If this in the "refund" to the passengers on the flight then I think Oscar Munoz just lost his job

It was already reported that everyone received a full refund. I'm assuming that this is on top of that and basically amounts to "You probably wouldn't sue us, but in the off chance that you would, here's $500 to just forget the whole thing." Probably pretty standard, and not much to lose by doing it. It isn't like they haven't already made these people whole through the previous refund. Plus, this is VOLUNTARY. Well, so far.....

Thanks for the clarification
I guess they can see that lawyers circling...

Well, I don't KNOW for sure that I'm right, but since it'd be reported that everyone received a full refund, I'm assuming that was the individual price of each ticket versus a standard amount. Who knows, though. I could just be hoping for some sanity. :-)

dlphoenix · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:17 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
SamYeager2016 wrote:
Excluding the garbage reasoning that "if you're told to leave and you don't you're now a trespasser and a safety risk" that some um.. misguided posters are still trying to push just how many non safety or security risk booked, paid, boarded and seated people actually need to be removed in a normal year?

Your question is gibberish. It is real simple: The contract of carriage gives the airline the right to remove passengers. If they are wrong, legal redress may be had. At that point the not so good doctor was a trespasser. Additionally, anytime a passenger is non-compliant with the flight or cabin crew, they are a safety risk and need to be removed. I believe the not so good doctor will get something maybe a lot. It will be, however, a calculation of the PR of the company, not because the man's legal rights were violated.

I hope that you are just teasing us.
And I certainly hope that Dr Dao will insist that as part of the settlement UA will admit wrongdoing.

dlphoenix · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:22 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well, I don't KNOW for sure that I'm right, but since it'd be reported that everyone received a full refund, I'm assuming that was the individual price of each ticket versus a standard amount. Who knows, though. I could just be hoping for some sanity.

All you need is one passenger tweeting that UA made the waiver a prerequisite for the refund...

scbriml · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:25 pm

dlphoenix wrote:
And I certainly hope that Dr Dao will insist that as part of the settlement UA will admit wrongdoing.

Their CEO already publically admitted that.

The final settlement (I don't believe it will get anywhere near court) will be private and include non-disclosure clauses, so we'll never know what it was.

Prinair · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:56 pm

I find it hilarious how many have commented on this issue based on their feelings while displaying their lack of any knowledge of actual airline operations.
Also, many join the airline bashing crowd simply because it's the latest trend on social media. Simply pathetic.

What's makes this whole situation even more laughable is that many of them will purchase tickets on United in the future. Right now they all love to condemn and mention they'll never fly United again.... Just wait until the next fare war to see their hypocrisy shine.

dlphoenix · Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:40 am

scbriml wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:
And I certainly hope that Dr Dao will insist that as part of the settlement UA will admit wrongdoing.

Their CEO already publically admitted that.

The final settlement (I don't believe it will get anywhere near court) will be private and include non-disclosure clauses, so we'll never know what it was.

1) The CEO admitting wrongdoing does not set a legal precedence, a settlement approved by the court does.
2) I stated that "I hope" because I foresee conflicting motives from both sides: UA management cannot afford a trial, but admitting wrongdoing will expose them to lawsuits by anybody who was ever removed from an airplane. Dr Dao will get a lot more money if the settlement is confidential, but forcing the airline to admit wrongdoing will make him a cult hero.

This will be entertaining, and I hope it will also result with US airlines treating passengers as customers

DLP

dlphoenix · Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:55 am

Prinair wrote:
I find it hilarious how many have commented on this issue based on their feelings while displaying their lack of any knowledge of actual airline operations.
Also, many join the airline bashing crowd simply because it's the latest trend on social media. Simply pathetic.

This is not about airline operation (which I am not familiar with), this is about attitude.
1) The airline called the police to remove a paying customer who did nothing wrong.
2) UA and other airlines are protected by the FAA from being liable for damage by not delivering what they sold (aka IDB)

So yes, people will express their rage.
And yes, I will continue flying with UA, file FAA complaints every time they or their peers mess up, and prod my representative to promote legislation that will remove the shield airlines receive from the legal system.

glbltrvlr · Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:04 am

dlphoenix wrote:
I will continue flying with UA, file FAA complaints every time they or their peers mess up

Pedantic comment - the FAA handles safety complaints. The US DOT handles non-safety consumer complaints.

9w748capt · Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:08 am

dlphoenix wrote:
DDR wrote:
Sorry if this has already been posted, CNN is reporting that UA is offering $500.00 to passengers on the flight but they have to sign a waiver stating they will not sue UA.00

If this in the "refund" to the passengers on the flight then I think Oscar Munoz just lost his job

Agreed. If anything UA owes the passengers much more than that unconditionally.

I hope the rest of the passengers on that flight sue UA - I'm not sure for what, but just for throwing that clause in that email, UA deserves to be taken to the cleaners.

dlphoenix · Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:17 am

glbltrvlr wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:
I will continue flying with UA, file FAA complaints every time they or their peers mess up

Pedantic comment - the FAA handles safety complaints. The US DOT handles non-safety consumer complaints.

I stand corrected.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net