ldvaviation
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:25 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.


Yes, in an attempt to excuse, some apologist have effectively argued that United is a gambling operation, an unlicensed one at that. (facepalm)
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1588
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:33 pm

Maybe, in order to compete, American Airlines should also introduce complimentary handcuffs for its first class passengers.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3021
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:36 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Another UA scandal just popped up. Geoff Fearns booked a First Class ticket, boarded the airplane and then was forced the leave the plane because somebody more important came in at the last minute:

Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff.

Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.

“I asked why,” he told me. “They said the flight was overfull.”

Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. He shouldn’t have to disembark.

“That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns said. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”


Next they threatened the customer if he would not cooperate:

“I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.


Source
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus ... story.html


You quoted so much of the article, why did you leave off the best part?

"Suddenly it had more first-class passengers than it knew what to do with. So it turned to its “How to Screw Over Customers” handbook" :rotfl:

CKFred wrote:
I am surprised that United oversold F on a flight out of Hawaii.


Maybe they didn't. The passenger they bumped him for may have shown up a few minutes late and only their highest level FFs cleared the upgrade standby list and already boarded and they decided to remove him instead.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:12 am

peterinlisbon wrote:
Maybe, in order to compete, American Airlines should also introduce complimentary handcuffs for its first class passengers.

Or whips and chains... that would be a new "Class of Service"... ;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
Flyer732
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 6:09 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:38 am

waly777 wrote:
Flyer732 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:

Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.

ps - anyone with an IQ over 50 would avoid buying such a seat


Tell that to the passengers of the flight that gets cancelled because someone wouldn't give up a seat for a deadhead crew member. Then it becomes a passengers problem, but as long as you get where you're going that's all that matters right? Who cares about everyone else.


This is not the passengers problem, the airline needs to find alternative means of getting crew across. They could block seats in advance, on the day of check in, blocks can be made which the check in agents cannot override, denied boarding should happen at the counter or the boarding gate.

If you need to offload pax after they are seated, other than for last minute mechanical, increased fuel uplift or a cabin crew getting sick as reasons, then this is poor planning and lack of co-ordination between the affected teams... thus the airline's fault. When you are at fault, you find ways to appease the passenger, not be a brute about it..customer focused airlines know this and ensure this is done politely with appropriate compensation.

I say this as someone who works closely with the pax re-accommodation and ticketing teams.


I agree with this in theory, but there are too many things that change at the last minute in this industry. What if the original crew was coming from somewhere else but had their flight cancel, and had to be replaced by a crew from another base? Things happen and you have to adapt, but I agree it could have been handled differently.
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:03 pm

So an FAM can have a F class passengers booted off the plane to accomodate them and what if the F passenger has an important meeting or business deal to attend to or something personal, what if they paid full fare and are the top man at some big company that matters?
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:35 pm

CanadaFair wrote:
So an FAM can have a F class passengers booted off the plane to accomodate them and what if the F passenger has an important meeting or business deal to attend to or something personal, what if they paid full fare and are the top man at some big company that matters?


Just to make certain people don't take it as a proven fact that the passenger was booted to make room for an Air Marshall, it must be remembered that this was a hypothesis put forward as a possible identification of the nature of the, "more important passenger," for whom the complainant was denied the First Class seat, into which they had already been boarded.

Due to the fact that, as has been stated up thread, such security personnel are not identified as such to other passengers, there is no definitive means of proving whether this suggestion holds water, any more so than the booted passenger's contention that he was informed that a passenger with loyalty program status was to be given his seat, in his stead.
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
m1m2
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:39 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:56 pm

Well, UA has got the attention of the Canadian government. The minister of transport issued a warning to airlines in Canada that forcibly removing passengers from an airplane will not be tolerated.

Not sure if it's relevant to this conversation but just thought I'd throw that out there.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:09 pm

afcjets wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Another UA scandal just popped up. Geoff Fearns booked a First Class ticket, boarded the airplane and then was forced the leave the plane because somebody more important came in at the last minute:

Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff.

Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.

“I asked why,” he told me. “They said the flight was overfull.”

Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. He shouldn’t have to disembark.

“That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns said. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”


Next they threatened the customer if he would not cooperate:

“I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.


Source
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus ... story.html


You quoted so much of the article, why did you leave off the best part?

"Suddenly it had more first-class passengers than it knew what to do with. So it turned to its “How to Screw Over Customers” handbook" :rotfl:

CKFred wrote:
I am surprised that United oversold F on a flight out of Hawaii.


Maybe they didn't. The passenger they bumped him for may have shown up a few minutes late and only their highest level FFs cleared the upgrade standby list and already boarded and they decided to remove him instead.


He should have let them put him in hadcuff and then sued da hell outta them...
 
Hallmark806
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:52 pm

Just stop traveling with this carrier. When will people learn to just stop booking with United? United has never been known for customer service and they never will! I quit traveling with them in 1985 after they had their 3rd strike with me. I have never entertained traveling with United since then and never will.
 
EMB170
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:02 pm

P1aneMad wrote:
UpNAWAy wrote:
Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

After a paid customer has been boarded it is absolutely unprofessional and downright idiotic to throw him off the plane because somebody came LATER with a higher mileage status and wanted in.
There are no two ways about it, it does not happened to the rest of the civilized world and we as a society find it so deplorable that UA and its stock price are being pummeled.
Quit digging, it is a settled issue. UA and anyone else who forces already boarded passengers to disembark in order for someone with higher FF status to get their seat are scum and deserve all the blowback they and their stock valuation are getting.


The only thing I could possibly think of is that the passenger who wanted in was some type of Star Alliance elite member at the highest tier. Isn't there some type of benefit guaranteed to these customers that they get positive space on a flight, even if it's been sold out?

Moreover, there is another story making the rounds re: UA this week about a passenger who was drunk, the flight attendants knew he was drunk, but apparently continued to serve the man alcohol. He apparently sexually assaulted the woman seated next to him.

Not a good week for UA. Who is running this airline?
IND ORD ATL MCO PIT EWR BUF CVG DEN RNO JFK DTW BOS BDL BWI IAD RDU CLT MYR CHS TPA CID MSP STL MSY DFW IAH AUS SLC LAS
 
D L X
Posts: 12606
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:46 am

CanadaFair wrote:
So an FAM can have a F class passengers booted off the plane to accomodate them and what if the F passenger has an important meeting or business deal to attend to or something personal, what if they paid full fare and are the top man at some big company that matters?

Then they'll fly in coach.

But FAMming is why I never select the first row if I'm ever upgraded.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:39 am

It should be clear here again that United broke the law. They can go and ask if the guy seated in his assigned seat would be prepared to change to accommodate them. But offering violence? Again, when you want to do changes, do it before boarding and pay compensation.
It seems to be very difficult to accept that even a big corporation, not used to the word no, is not aloud to resort to violence to press their view.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:19 pm

EMB170 wrote:
The only thing I could possibly think of is that the passenger who wanted in was some type of Star Alliance elite member at the highest tier. Isn't there some type of benefit guaranteed to these customers that they get positive space on a flight, even if it's been sold out?


There are airlines which guarantee a seat to the highest tier frequent flyers if they book business class seats. But the catch is that the guaranteed seat is in economy.

I know someone who tried this privilege and once he found out that he would pay a J fare for a Y seat on AF, he quickly checked EK and got a Y seat at a Y fare :D

They will never bump another business class passenger.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 742 743 744 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:18 pm

Flyer732 wrote:
waly777 wrote:
Flyer732 wrote:

Tell that to the passengers of the flight that gets cancelled because someone wouldn't give up a seat for a deadhead crew member. Then it becomes a passengers problem, but as long as you get where you're going that's all that matters right? Who cares about everyone else.


This is not the passengers problem, the airline needs to find alternative means of getting crew across. They could block seats in advance, on the day of check in, blocks can be made which the check in agents cannot override, denied boarding should happen at the counter or the boarding gate.

If you need to offload pax after they are seated, other than for last minute mechanical, increased fuel uplift or a cabin crew getting sick as reasons, then this is poor planning and lack of co-ordination between the affected teams... thus the airline's fault. When you are at fault, you find ways to appease the passenger, not be a brute about it..customer focused airlines know this and ensure this is done politely with appropriate compensation.

I say this as someone who works closely with the pax re-accommodation and ticketing teams.


I agree with this in theory, but there are too many things that change at the last minute in this industry. What if the original crew was coming from somewhere else but had their flight cancel, and had to be replaced by a crew from another base? Things happen and you have to adapt, but I agree it could have been handled differently.


That's when you offer bribes to passengers. Everybody has a price and in a plane carrying dozens to hundreds of people, you keep increasing the incentives until the cheapest of the bunch takes the bait. Presto...you get your seat freed up, the passenger leaves happily and voluntarily and your much more important person gets to fly. Most importantly, good will, (and reviews), are had by all.

It's how smart, customer centric businesses deal with problems. With a good business, the SITUATION, is the problem. With United, the CUSTOMER is the problem.

It seems pretty clear that United has some serious, institutional, cultural PR issues. If McDonalds, or Costco or any other customer centric business has an issue, problems are solved quickly and efficiently at lower levels, since the biggest enemy is time. The quicker a problem is solved, the less likely it can escalate into something unmanageable. If you get a big mac you're unhappy with, they simply throw it out and get you a new one. If you return something to Costco, they take it, throw it on a pile, and give you your money back. No questions, no fuss....you're in and out before you know it...and you have nothing but good feelings towards that business and odds are, you'll spend all of that money you put back in your pocket during that same trip.

United seems to look at every customer as a problem....a necessary evil to be tolerated but not respected. The solutions are so simple and start with respecting customers as people. Sure, some will try to screw you....but what's worse? Somebody manages to weasel a free meal voucher out of you, or having to deal with tens of thousands reading about you abusing poor, innocent passengers who were only trying to visit Gammy one last time......*sniff*.

The best solution to a problem is one that is solved so quickly and effortlessly, that nobody else ever hears about it. A business's corporate culture comes from the top...and it's looking like United's top might need a bit of trimming.
Last edited by JoeCanuck on Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What the...?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14155
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:37 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
It should be clear here again that United broke the law. They can go and ask if the guy seated in his assigned seat would be prepared to change to accommodate them. But offering violence? Again, when you want to do changes, do it before boarding and pay compensation.
It seems to be very difficult to accept that even a big corporation, not used to the word no, is not aloud to resort to violence to press their view.


It's not clear at all. As explained above, it's legal if the other passenger was an FAM (and they do not owe IDB compensation in that case).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:24 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
It should be clear here again that United broke the law. They can go and ask if the guy seated in his assigned seat would be prepared to change to accommodate them. But offering violence? Again, when you want to do changes, do it before boarding and pay compensation.
It seems to be very difficult to accept that even a big corporation, not used to the word no, is not aloud to resort to violence to press their view.


It's not clear at all. As explained above, it's legal if the other passenger was an FAM (and they do not owe IDB compensation in that case).


A FAM has a call on the airline not the passenger.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14155
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:31 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
It should be clear here again that United broke the law. They can go and ask if the guy seated in his assigned seat would be prepared to change to accommodate them. But offering violence? Again, when you want to do changes, do it before boarding and pay compensation.
It seems to be very difficult to accept that even a big corporation, not used to the word no, is not aloud to resort to violence to press their view.


It's not clear at all. As explained above, it's legal if the other passenger was an FAM (and they do not owe IDB compensation in that case).


A FAM has a call on the airline not the passenger.


Say again? If an FAM shows up, the airline has to accommodate the FAM.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
kaitak
Posts: 9756
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:34 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Flyer732 wrote:
waly777 wrote:

The best solution to a problem is one that is solved so quickly and effortlessly, that nobody else ever hears about it. A business's corporate culture comes from the top...and it's looking like United's top might need a bit of trimming.


What they need is another Gordon Bethune. Can someone do for UA what GB did for CO, to get its past its "bad old days". I don't think Munoz is the guy to do that; his flip flopping over Dr. Dao has undermined his credibility.

To my mind, it comes to morale and you're not going to raise morale without standards; morale is bad because, essentially, no one expects much from them; good service is seen as the exception rather than the rule and if your colleagues aren't held up to a high standard and your employer isn't going to recognise you for good service, nor do much more than shrug its shoulders if you provide bad service, you don't have a firm foundation on which to build a good service culture. I don't believe that UA employees - particularly customer facing employees go to work wanting to do a bad job; they would much rather be part of an organisation that is respected, where their input is valued, which is seen to be achieving good (non-financial results). That UA is achieving record profits is because they put their shareholders first - not their employees and certainly not their customers; that approach is going to have to end. A customer driven business is more than just numbers and spreadsheets; there has to be a human element in there somewhere.

Who is going to take the lead?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:58 pm

kaitak wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Flyer732 wrote:


What they need is another Gordon Bethune. Can someone do for UA what GB did for CO, to get its past its "bad old days". I don't think Munoz is the guy to do that; his flip flopping over Dr. Dao has undermined his credibility.

To my mind, it comes to morale and you're not going to raise morale without standards; morale is bad because, essentially, no one expects much from them; good service is seen as the exception rather than the rule and if your colleagues aren't held up to a high standard and your employer isn't going to recognise you for good service, nor do much more than shrug its shoulders if you provide bad service, you don't have a firm foundation on which to build a good service culture. I don't believe that UA employees - particularly customer facing employees go to work wanting to do a bad job; they would much rather be part of an organisation that is respected, where their input is valued, which is seen to be achieving good (non-financial results). That UA is achieving record profits is because they put their shareholders first - not their employees and certainly not their customers; that approach is going to have to end. A customer driven business is more than just numbers and spreadsheets; there has to be a human element in there somewhere.

Who is going to take the lead?


First, like an alcoholic, you have to admit there's a problem. After that, the solution includes empowering all of the employees. The people on the ground, (so to speak), are the real face of United, (or any company). Most problems, (like every single one that has made the news), has been a small problem that got blown way out of proportion. You have to give your people leeway to come up with solutions to solve problems as they occur...right there, right now.

If a person is seated, they keep the seat...unless safety is involved. If they want a person to move, work with that person, not against them. You don't take their seat. They bought it from you...it's theirs. So...buy it back.

I mean, come on folks. They already decided that your product was worth spending a bunch of their own money on. Why treat them like an adversary?

Give the people directly involved the power and support to make a quick and dirty deal...no fuss, everybody is happy. Even if you give away a free ticket, or upgrade coupon or hotel....whatever....it's a few hundred bucks against an unknown amount of loss of cash and good will by picking a fight.

If one of your people gives too much away...back them anyway...and use that as data to create a better system.

It's the very core of customer service...as basic as it gets...but sometimes, the basics get lost on the way to the Ivory Tower.
What the...?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:30 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

It's not clear at all. As explained above, it's legal if the other passenger was an FAM (and they do not owe IDB compensation in that case).


A FAM has a call on the airline not the passenger.


Say again? If an FAM shows up, the airline has to accommodate the FAM.


The airline has to accommodate him, not the passenger, the passenger will not even know that he is a FAM.
 
youragentjim
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:32 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:36 pm

Has anyone even thought that the "more important" passenger might be a sky marshal?
They can take any seat they want, even on full flights.
Happened to a family member of mine, she was in F, suddenly her seat assignment
that was booked months prior to departure simply disappeared. Full flight
she was offered Y but did manage to get a seat in F due to a no-show and
the pax that got her seat would not trade with her. Second row, aisle seats
seem to be popular with sky marshals.
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:53 pm

Already speculated on the first page of the thread.

However, there would be no means of proving this hypothesis, any more than it is possible to disprove the passenger's account of events with 100% certainty, so it must remain nothing more than a proposed identity for this, "more important passenger."
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:45 pm

waly777 wrote:
This is not the passengers problem, the airline needs to find alternative means of getting crew across. They could block seats in advance, on the day of check in, blocks can be made which the check in agents cannot override, denied boarding should happen at the counter or the boarding gate.

If you need to offload pax after they are seated, other than for last minute mechanical, increased fuel uplift or a cabin crew getting sick as reasons, then this is poor planning and lack of co-ordination between the affected teams... thus the airline's fault. When you are at fault, you find ways to appease the passenger, not be a brute about it..customer focused airlines know this and ensure this is done politely with appropriate compensation.


Right.

Of course, you can imagine a different world, apparently preferred by seahawk and others, where the airlines get to do whatever they want, without consequences, and with no consideration of the strength of actions matching the seriousness of situation. We can all imagine tragic consequences of such an approach.

I do not believe such a world is desirable or just, and I'd hope consumers would vote with their wallets to stay out of businesses run in that manner. As they are now doing with United... and an attempt by the airlines to move into that direction would probably be met with regulation and government intervention. And that is something that the airlines are probably very afraid of. So I see lots of reasons for the airlines to not act like thugs or employ excessive violence.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:26 pm

    What an absolute $#!tshow this is! But what's really tragic is that this isn't the last time UA goes this far. This is third or fourth high profile case in a month.

    UA's culture of customer service is fundamentally flawed, and it goes all the way to the top! No amount of training, seminars and reform is going to fix that, ever!

    UA needs to get rid of their slogan and "Friendly" ad campaign immediately.
    United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
     
    TheGeordielad
    Posts: 905
    Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:08 pm

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:54 pm

    What aircraft operated this flight?
     
    weekendppl
    Posts: 106
    Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:59 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:32 pm

    So many thoughts about this thread.

    That some posters are still prattling on about this being fault of UA legacy or Continental legacy says something about the source of all of this in itself. They are still fighting an internal war that should have been over years ago. No wonder they can't get around to caring about the customer. At that, IIRC UA has gone to all contract ground staff on the neighbor islands. Also, LIH is a very laid back place so this seems out of character for here. Unless the traveler in question started out with an attitude. My experience is that there are two kinds of travelers. Those who are just trying to make the best of it and those who feel entitled at every step in the process. Unless you are one of the latter, you know what I mean.

    For many people, not flying UA in protest is not terribly practical. Our most frequent round trip is LIH-DEN. The least bad options for this itinerary are always UA.

    "First Class" on UA LIH-LAX is nothing special. In general, the service on all classes of UA mainland to HI has become all but indistinguishable from all other UA domestic. This is unfortunate. Many aspects used to be unique to the Hawaii service. No more.

    We really shouldn't be surprised that the US majors in general and UA in specific have come to view the travelling public--their customers--as little more than annoying barriers to otherwise smooth operations. With load factors in the 80s (so 100% on many flights) they see no connection between service and filling the seats. Indeed, the traveling public has spent several decades now demonstrating to them that there is essentially no masochism elasticity of demand. The industry has progressively dehumanized the travel experience for decades and it has done nothing to reduce demand. There is no doubt in my mind that the airlines would happily do 11-abreast on a 777 if they could sell it to the safety regulators.

    In defense of the airlines, for some reason some people show up at an airport and turn into childish entitled jerks who think everybody who is working ground- or air-side owes them special consideration and solutions to all of life's problems from the weather to personal exceptions to FAA-mandated safety practices. Again, unless you are one of these people you know what I mean.
     
    rta
    Posts: 1413
    Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:38 pm

    flyguy84 wrote:
    P1aneMad wrote:
    flyguy84 wrote:
    Let's not get carried away. The stock ended down 1%. That's not anything to point to as a victory.

    You mean $225.000.000 getting wiped out and the airline facing a backlash that no other airline has in the last decade?
    Munoz's apology after his initial reaction says it all really. .

    You do realize the stock market fluctuates and can easily regain those losses in a matter of hours.



    I'm also wondering about this. Unless I'm missing something, their stock didn't take any damage from the past week (aside from regular fluctuations). Delta stock is down a bigger percentage, for comparison's sake.
     
    User avatar
    Boeing778X
    Posts: 3268
    Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:59 pm

    [photoid][/photoid]
    TheGeordielad wrote:
    What aircraft operated this flight?


    It was Lihue to LAX, so 739ER?
    United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
     
    JoeCanuck
    Posts: 4704
    Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:27 pm

    In regards to no other business, is the saying, "you get what you pay for", more apropos.

    Airline service has been the butt of jokes for decades. The general flying public, (not necessarily those with lots of money or points), pretty much accepts that the airline experience is something to be endured, rather than enjoyed...a necessary evil. With the airlines making record profits, they feel little incentive to offer a customer friendly experience.

    Airlines have learned that no matter what they do, people keep on flying. It seems the only impediment to full planes, is high prices. Crappy service, leg cramping pitch, butt numbing seats, luggage/ticketing/booking/meal/drink/etc fees, haven't made a dent in passenger numbers. Many airlines have tried to offer a more premium experience, at a slightly higher cost, but they soon find out that even a few cents more up front, can spell doom to an airline.

    Passengers have voted with their wallet and given their tacit approval for exactly what they are getting. You want to fly across continents for the price of a night out at the movies? Expect popcorn in your seat, churlish ushers and mysteriously sticky floors.
    What the...?
     
    weekendppl
    Posts: 106
    Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:59 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:57 pm

    Boeing778X wrote:
    It was Lihue to LAX, so 739ER?

    Probably was a B752 changed to a B738. Not sure a 739 makes it off the runway at LIH with mainland range. Don't think we ever see 739s here.
     
    jumbojet
    Posts: 2957
    Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:57 am

    Hallmark806 wrote:
    Just stop traveling with this carrier. When will people learn to just stop booking with United? United has never been known for customer service and they never will! I quit traveling with them in 1985 after they had their 3rd strike with me. I have never entertained traveling with United since then and never will.


    Ah men to that brother
     
    jumbojet
    Posts: 2957
    Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

    Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

    Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:00 am

    Boeing778X wrote:
      What an absolute $#!tshow this is! But what's really tragic is that this isn't the last time UA goes this far. This is third or fourth high profile case in a month.

      UA's culture of customer service is fundamentally flawed, and it goes all the way to the top! No amount of training, seminars and reform is going to fix that, ever!

      UA needs to get rid of their slogan and "Friendly" ad campaign immediately.


      I'll take that a step further. The only way for UA to really start fresh is from the top down. Munoz must go, using the word 'Friendly' must go. What UA needs is a fresh start, new livery, new everything. This event is a week old and its still in the main stream of news journalism.
       
      User avatar
      Boeing778X
      Posts: 3268
      Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

      Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

      Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:32 am

      jumbojet wrote:
      Boeing778X wrote:
        What an absolute $#!tshow this is! But what's really tragic is that this isn't the last time UA goes this far. This is third or fourth high profile case in a month.

        UA's culture of customer service is fundamentally flawed, and it goes all the way to the top! No amount of training, seminars and reform is going to fix that, ever!

        UA needs to get rid of their slogan and "Friendly" ad campaign immediately.


        I'll take that a step further. The only way for UA to really start fresh is from the top down. Munoz must go, using the word 'Friendly' must go. What UA needs is a fresh start, new livery, new everything. This event is a week old and its still in the main stream of news journalism.


        Unconditionally agree.

        Just nuke everything. But I fear the damage has been done! The name "United" is borderline toxic now.

        Hell! I can even envision Spirit taking advantage of this charade and making a billboard:

        "Other Airlines Leaving You Feeling Dragged? Las Vegas, Starting At $29"
        United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
         
        jumbojet
        Posts: 2957
        Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:38 am

        Another example of something that has to go; from the United Hub, Our Shared Purpose...

        https://hub.united.com/sp/purposes/
         
        User avatar
        Boeing778X
        Posts: 3268
        Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:20 am

        jumbojet wrote:
        Another example of something that has to go; from the United Hub, Our Shared Purpose...

        https://hub.united.com/sp/purposes/


        Ooo! Let me take a whack! :hyper:

        "Connecting People, Uniting The World"

        A summons and court hearing connects and unites a lot of people, doesn't it?

        "We Fly Right"

        Continental "Flew Right." Not you guys.

        "We Fly Friendly"

        You jokers are about as friendly as a pissed off badger right now!

        "We Fly Together"

        I'm AA, I'm never flying your sorry butt ever again, so that tag doesn't work well. I'm sure a great multitude will concur.

        "We Fly Above And Beyond"

        ...Which is where your lawsuits and legal fees are going. Insulting.
        United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
         
        D L X
        Posts: 12606
        Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:08 pm

        mjoelnir wrote:
        Cubsrule wrote:
        mjoelnir wrote:

        A FAM has a call on the airline not the passenger.


        Say again? If an FAM shows up, the airline has to accommodate the FAM.


        The airline has to accommodate him, not the passenger, the passenger will not even know that he is a FAM.

        The FAM decides where he wants to sit. If there is a passenger there, the passenger will be moved. Also, the airline is not allowed to tell the passengers why he is being moved and is not required to give him compensation.
         
        Flighty
        Posts: 9963
        Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:04 pm

        This used to happen every day. I think it's good that people already seated won't be bothered, anymore. But previously, if the boarding door was still open, everything was fair game. Out with the old, in with the new.
         
        jumbojet
        Posts: 2957
        Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:17 pm

        Boeing778X wrote:
        jumbojet wrote:
        Another example of something that has to go; from the United Hub, Our Shared Purpose...

        https://hub.united.com/sp/purposes/


        Ooo! Let me take a whack! :hyper:

        "Connecting People, Uniting The World"

        A summons and court hearing connects and unites a lot of people, doesn't it?

        "We Fly Right"

        Continental "Flew Right." Not you guys.

        "We Fly Friendly"

        You jokers are about as friendly as a pissed off badger right now!

        "We Fly Together"

        I'm AA, I'm never flying your sorry butt ever again, so that tag doesn't work well. I'm sure a great multitude will concur.

        "We Fly Above And Beyond"

        ...Which is where your lawsuits and legal fees are going. Insulting.


        If it was only that simple for UA to hit the reset button but alas, this will have to run its course.

        Its still grabbing headlines, over a week now since it happened. I heard Jimmy Fallone did a piece on United last night on Saturday Night Live and , Ellen DeGeneres also poked some fun at United during her show on Friday. The hits keep coming....
         
        mjoelnir
        Posts: 9193
        Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:27 pm

        D L X wrote:
        mjoelnir wrote:
        Cubsrule wrote:

        Say again? If an FAM shows up, the airline has to accommodate the FAM.


        The airline has to accommodate him, not the passenger, the passenger will not even know that he is a FAM.

        The FAM decides where he wants to sit. If there is a passenger there, the passenger will be moved. Also, the airline is not allowed to tell the passengers why he is being moved and is not required to give him compensation.


        I can imagine that the FAM can come and take a seat. But this IMO crazy idea that the airline does not have to compensate you as a passenger, what do they tell you? You are not supposed to know that the person is a FAM, so saying you have to luv for a FAM is out of question. So how does the airline manage no compensation? What is if there is a group booked together, a family with children and so on? I think some airline aficionados do have some crazy ideas.
         
        frmrCapCadet
        Posts: 3393
        Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:02 pm

        Do I have this right? They tell you that you have to abandon your seat, and that they won't tell you why, but that they do not have to give you any compensation. AHA. FAM!
        Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
         
        md11sdf
        Posts: 96
        Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:11 am

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:51 pm

        It looks to me like so much damage has been done to the "UNITED" brand that they're going to have to revert to "CONTINENTAL" and repaint their aircraft in the old 1970's gold-based striped cheatline livery. Otherwise, a year from now Southwest will be taking over them!! Their IDIOT CEO needs to be fired right now....

        Oh, because I don't have time to read this whole thread, what the heck is a "FAM"?
        LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY: Where your camera looks just like a stinger missile to the Airport Police!!
         
        kavok
        Posts: 645
        Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:14 pm

        Again, and as mentioned by many others, this whole FAM things is another example of the airline not valuing customers.

        To be honest, I have no idea how often the FAM situation actually happens in practice. And I get that the FAM may have a reason to need a particular seat for a particular safety reason in certain instances. I do get that, but there should be a reason in place if the FAM is selecting a certain seat in particular.

        If it is the case of randomly assigning FAM to be on random flights so bad people have no idea which flights FAM are on, then the FAM should just get placed wherever the GA can fit them in, causing the least disorder. The only time they should invoke the "I need seat X, they should have to supply a good reason for it, and not just because they like more leg room and a free meal.

        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.
         
        User avatar
        GlenP
        Posts: 263
        Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:18 pm

        md11sdf wrote:
        It looks to me like so much damage has been done to the "UNITED" brand that they're going to have to revert to "CONTINENTAL" and repaint their aircraft in the old 1970's gold-based striped cheatline livery. Otherwise, a year from now Southwest will be taking over them!! Their IDIOT CEO needs to be fired right now....

        Oh, because I don't have time to read this whole thread, what the heck is a "FAM"?


        Took me a while to figure out the acronym, as we don't have them in the UK, but it stands for Federal Air Marshal
        Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
         
        PlanesNTrains
        Posts: 9526
        Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:39 pm

        1. I missed it - where did it say that they don't compensate downgrades?
        2. The FAM most likely wants/needs to be near the cockpit and not trapped in a window.
        3. Unlike the UA deadheading crew, the FAM can't just get put on another flight - the whole point is to be on the flight that is selected.
        4. FAM = Federal Air Marshall. This is not a United Airlines program or within their control.
        -Dave


        MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
         
        PlanesNTrains
        Posts: 9526
        Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:42 pm

        kavok wrote:
        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.


        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.
        -Dave


        MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
         
        User avatar
        GlenP
        Posts: 263
        Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:51 pm

        PlanesNTrains wrote:
        kavok wrote:
        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.


        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Just remember that, due to the very hush-hush nature of such deployments, the presence of an Air Marshal on this flight has only been put forward as a possible explanation of what happened and can no more be proved than the passenger's account disproved.

        It appears, from reading the thread, that it has been taken as a known fact, when the truth is we'll never really know.
        Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
         
        kavok
        Posts: 645
        Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:53 pm

        PlanesNTrains wrote:
        kavok wrote:
        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.


        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Way to miss the entire point of the post. Never once was it argued that FAM program was unnecessary or wrong. The entire argument was that FAM should not be claiming F seats indiscriminately because they feel like it. If there is a security reason or suspicion that would justify the FAM sitting in F, then by all means they obviously should. But otherwise, the FAM should get placed wherever the GA can fit them in.
         
        PlanesNTrains
        Posts: 9526
        Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:06 pm

        GlenP wrote:
        PlanesNTrains wrote:
        kavok wrote:
        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.


        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Just remember that, due to the very hush-hush nature of such deployments, the presence of an Air Marshal on this flight has only been put forward as a possible explanation of what happened and can no more be proved than the passenger's account disproved.

        It appears, from reading the thread, that it has been taken as a known fact, when the truth is we'll never really know.


        Of course, and I'm not personally assuming anything. I read the original story before this thread was created and it never referenced the possibility of a FAM. However, it is a possibility.

        kavok wrote:
        PlanesNTrains wrote:
        kavok wrote:
        And to that comment, I am sure UA fanboys will be quick to say well that is just federal regulations and we have to follow it. Well, if UA was truly concerned about their customers, they would lobby against the practice of FAM getting F seats without reason. UA has no problems lobbying against other federal regulations they don't like. But in this case where the customer is negatively affected, again UA just doesn't seem to care.


        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Way to miss the entire point of the post. Never once was it argued that FAM program was unnecessary or wrong. The entire argument was that FAM should not be claiming F seats indiscriminately because they feel like it. If there is a security reason or suspicion that would justify the FAM sitting in F, then by all means they obviously should. But otherwise, the FAM should get placed wherever the GA can fit them in.


        The whole point of the FAM program is to protect the plane. Hard to do when you are in the middle seat in row 37 and have to fight your way through a line at the lavatory. What that has to do with UA, I don't know, but you managed to disparage them for "allowing" or "not lobbying against" a federal program that is there to save their employees, passengers, and assets, just like it's there for every airline.
        -Dave


        MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
         
        mjoelnir
        Posts: 9193
        Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

        Re: United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

        Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:09 pm

        PlanesNTrains wrote:
        GlenP wrote:
        PlanesNTrains wrote:

        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Just remember that, due to the very hush-hush nature of such deployments, the presence of an Air Marshal on this flight has only been put forward as a possible explanation of what happened and can no more be proved than the passenger's account disproved.

        It appears, from reading the thread, that it has been taken as a known fact, when the truth is we'll never really know.


        Of course, and I'm not personally assuming anything. I read the original story before this thread was created and it never referenced the possibility of a FAM. However, it is a possibility.

        kavok wrote:
        PlanesNTrains wrote:

        UA lost two planes/crews in 9/11. The deadheading crew thing had nothing to do with safety/security - this does. I don't think airlines want to see that happen again. You can blather on about 9/11 excuses and UA incompetence all you want if it makes you feel better, but this is a federal program and is there for the safety of the traveling public. If you don't like it, don't fly or lobby it yourself.


        Way to miss the entire point of the post. Never once was it argued that FAM program was unnecessary or wrong. The entire argument was that FAM should not be claiming F seats indiscriminately because they feel like it. If there is a security reason or suspicion that would justify the FAM sitting in F, then by all means they obviously should. But otherwise, the FAM should get placed wherever the GA can fit them in.


        The whole point of the FAM program is to protect the plane. Hard to do when you are in the middle seat in row 37 and have to fight your way through a line at the lavatory. What that has to do with UA, I don't know, but you managed to disparage them for "allowing" or "not lobbying against" a federal program that is there to save their employees, passengers, and assets, just like it's there for every airline.


        The point was that nobody should know that a FAM is aboard and who the FAM is. The FAM program is a federal program to protect against terrorist or similar, I get that. The point I was making was, that if you would not compensate passengers in the case that an FAM takes their seat, how do you keep it quiet, that a FAM is on board and were he sits?

        Popular Searches On Airliners.net

        Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

        Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

        Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

        Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

        Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

        Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

        Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

        Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

        Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

        Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

        Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

        Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

        Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

        Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

        Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos